Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Gross Income: Further Expounded. by Larken Rose
1) The Basics
The legal system of the United States is a system of written law, in which the law means what the words in the law literally say. Therefore, an accurate determination of what the law requires can be accomplished only by an objective examination of the law itself, without regard for preconceived assumptions about what the law says. The following is just such an examination of the federal "income tax." This report will use the federal statutes and regulations themselves to document that the types of income subject to the federal income tax are far more limited than the public generally believes. It will be shown that while many types of "income" can be taxable, they can be taxable only if they come from specific "sources," and it will be shown that the taxable "sources" include income related to international and foreign commerce, but do not include income earned by United States citizens living and working within the United States.
(Throughout the report there are six "Questions for Doubters" for tax professionals or others who doubt the correctness of this report.)
To enact federal laws, Congress passes statutes through the legislative process, which are contained in the 50 "titles" of the United States Code. A federal agency then has the duty (assigned by Congress) to implement and enforce the statutes by writing and publishing regulations, which explain that agency's interpretation of the statutes, as well as setting the rules which govern how the agency will enforce the statutes. The regulations, when published in the Federal Register, are the official notice to the public of what the law requires. For federal taxes (found in Title 26 of the statutes), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to write such regulations.
"Sec. 7805. Rules and regulations (a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]
The citation "26 USC § 7805" refers to Section 7805 of the statutes of Title 26, with "USC" meaning "United States Code." (The symbol "§" means "section.") The citations of regulations are similar, but contain "CFR" instead, meaning Code of Federal Regulations. All non-italicized comments (in brackets) within a citation in this report are comments of the author, and do not appear in the text itself. Also, all bold and underlined emphasis within citations has been added by the author.
Section 1 of the Title 26 statutes imposes the "income tax" in five different categories (unmarried people, married people filing jointly, etc.). In each case, the wording reads "there is hereby imposed on the taxable income of…" The law defines "taxable income" in the following section of the statutes:
"Sec. 63. Taxable income defined
(a) In general - …the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter…" [26 USC § 63]
In other words, when someone determines his "gross income," and then subtracts all legal deductions, the remainder is "taxable income." The law specifically defines "gross income" in the following section of the statutes:
"Sec. 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition - … gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:" [26 USC § 61]
This section then lists "items" of income such as interest, compensation for services, etc.
This is the point at which many tax "experts" err, either by assuming that the "items" of income listed constitute "sources" of income, or by assuming that "from whatever source derived" means that all of the "items" of income listed, regardless of where they come from, are subject to the "income tax." Both of these assumptions are incorrect. (The difference and relationship between "items" and "sources" will be explained below.)
2) English vs. Legalese
In our system of written law, Congress may use a term to mean almost anything, as long as the law itself defines that meaning. When the written law explains the meaning of a term used in the law, standard English usage becomes irrelevant. For example, by the definition in 26 USC § 7701(a)(1), the term "person" includes estates, companies and corporations. (While no one would describe Walmart as a "person" in everyday conversation, Walmart is a "person" under federal tax law.) The legal use of a term is often significantly different from basic English, and therefore reading one section of the law alone can be very misleading.
As a good example, 26 USC § 5821 (found in Subtitle E of Title 26, "Alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes") states that "[t]here shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the making of a firearm a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm made," and 26 USC § 5841 states that "[t]he Secretary shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States." The law has a far more limited application than these sections by themselves would seem to imply. In 26 USC § 5845(a) it is made clear that the term "firearm" in these sections does not include the majority of rifles and handguns (while the term "firearm" in basic English obviously would), but does include poison gas, silencers and land mines. A reader who is unaware of this definition will get an entirely incorrect and overly-broad impression of the application of the law.
As demonstrated, sometimes the apparent meaning of simple phrases in the law (such as "all firearms" or "income from whatever source derived") is very different from the actual legal meaning. The "income tax" is imposed on "income from whatever source derived." If the law did not explain what constitutes "sources of income," then the law would be interpreted using basic English. However, the law does explain what the term means, and therefore standard English usage is irrelevant.
3) Sources of Income
To review, the "income tax" is imposed on "taxable income," which means "gross income" minus deductions. "Gross income" is defined in 26 USC § 61 as "all income from whatever source derived." To someone who doesn't understand how legal language works, the phrase "all income from whatever source derived" may appear all-encompassing. But for the specifics about "income from sources," the reader is repeatedly referred to Section 861 and following (of the statutes) and the related regulations. In the full version of Title 26 (with all notes and amendments), Section 61 itself has the following cross-reference:
"Income from sources -
Within the United States, see section 861 of this title.
Without the United States, see section 862 of this title."
In addition, the indexes of the United States Code (although they vary somewhat in the exact wording) have entries such as:
"Income tax
Sources of income
Determination, 26 § 861 et seq…
Within the U.S., 26 § 861"
Other sections of the statutes repeatedly refer to Section 861 as the section which determines what constitutes "income from sources within the United States," and Section 861 itself is predictably titled "Income from sources within the United States," with the first two subsections entitled "Gross income from sources within the United States" and "Taxable income from sources within the United States." This section is the first section of Subchapter N of the Code, entitled "Tax based on income from sources within or without the United States." One section of the statutes also uses the phrase "part I of subchapter N (sec. 861 and following, relating to determination of sources of income)."
As mentioned before, the statutes passed by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") by the Secretary of the Treasury (and the IRS must abide by these regulations). The Index of the CFR, under "Income taxes," has an entry that reads "Income from sources inside or outside U.S., determination of sources of income, 26 CFR 1 (1.861-1--1.864-8T)." This is the only entry in the Index relating to income from sources within the United States. The regulations cited fall under the heading "Determination of sources of income." The following is the first thing these regulations say:
"Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
(a) Categories of income. Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax." [26 CFR § 1.861-1]
The meaning of this is unmistakable. The "income tax" is imposed on "income from whatever source derived," and Section 861 and following, and the related regulations (26 CFR § 1.861 and following), determine what is considered a "source of income" for purposes of the income tax. Note that these define "the" sources of income subject to the income tax, meaning there are no others. Therefore, the meaning of "income from whatever source derived" (the definition of "gross income" in Section 61) is limited by Section 861 (and following sections) and the related regulations.
In the citation "26 CFR § 1.861-1," the "26" refers to Title 26, the "1" after "CFR" refers to Part 1 of the regulations ("Income Taxes"), and the ".861" refers to Section 861 of the statutes. (A chart showing the structure of Part I, Subchapter N, and its regulations, including most of the citations in this report, is included at the end of this report.) While the significance of Section 861 and the related regulations may be obvious, the point needs to be thoroughly documented, since most tax professionals concede that Section 861 and its regulations are not about income of United States citizens living and working within the United States. This is suggested in the title of Part I of Subchapter N (of which 861 is the first section), "Source rules and other general rules relating to foreign income."
Under the usual overly broad (and erroneous) interpretation of the legal scope of the term "gross income," this would appear as a contradiction, since "Income from sources within the United States" (the title of Section 861) would at first glance seem to be the opposite of "foreign income." The specific taxable sources shown later demonstrate that income from within the United States can be taxable only if received by certain individuals outside of the United States, thus making the income foreign income.
While titles of parts of the statutes may indicate what that part is about, it should be mentioned that 26 USC § 7806(b) states that such titles do not change the actual meaning of the law ("nor shall any… descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect"). The above explanation for the title of Part I, Subchapter N is therefore not crucial, but does give a possible reason for why the title is as it is.
(Question for Doubters #1: Does Part I (Section 861 and following) of Subchapter N, and related regulations, determine what is considered a "source" of income for purposes of the federal income tax?)
4) Determining Taxable Income
In addition to the fact that Section 861 and following, and related regulations, determine what is considered a "source" of income subject to the income tax, these sections (specifically 26 USC § 861(b) of the statutes and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 of the regulations) are also repeatedly identified as the specific sections to be used in determining taxable income. (The regulations under Section 63, the section defining "taxable income," do not explain how to determine taxable income.) Section 861(b) (as mentioned above) is entitled "Taxable income from sources within the United States." This section states that taxable income from sources within the United States is the gross income described in 861(a) minus allowable deductions. Again, while this may quickly become obvious, the repeated documentation is important since most tax professionals are already aware that these sections are not about the domestic income of resident United States citizens. The regulations under Section 861 state (in the first paragraph):
"The statute provides for the following three categories of income:
(1) Within the United States. The gross income from sources within the United States… See Secs.1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and Sec. 1.863-1. The taxable income from sources within the United States… shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), [allowable deductions]. See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1." [26 CFR § 1.861-1(a)(1)]
(The other two categories of income are income from "without" (outside of) the U.S., dealt with by Section 862 and related regulations, and income from sources partly within and partly without the U.S., dealt with by Section 863 and related regulations.)
Items of "gross income" from sources within the U.S. are dealt with by 861(a) of the statutes and 1.861-2 through 1.861-7 of the regulations. Taxable income is determined by 861(b) of the statutes, and the corresponding regulations in 1.861-8. These regulations are predictably entitled "Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities," and reiterate the point:
"Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States after gross income from sources within the United States has been determined." [26 CFR § 1.861-8]
In the regulations under Section 863 (concerning income from sources inside and outside the U.S.), the following is stated:
"Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer's taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable income from sources within the United States." [26 CFR § 1.863-1(c)]
Note how sections 1.861-8 and following of the regulations are identified as the sections "for determining taxable income from sources within the United States," as well as being the sections to be used whether the income is from sources within or without the United States. A similar structure occurs in the regulations under Section 862 (dealing with income from outside of the United States):
"(b) Taxable income. The taxable income from sources without the United States… shall be determined on the same basis as that used in Sec. 1.861-8 for determining the taxable income from sources within the United States." [26 CFR § 1.862-1]
Section 1.863-6 of the regulations (dealing with income from within a foreign country or federal possession) also identifies sections 1.861-1 through 1.863-5 as applying "[t]he principles… for determining the gross and the taxable income from sources within and without the United States." Over and over again it is shown that 26 USC § 861(b) of the statutes and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 of the regulations determine the taxable income from sources within the United States.
(Question for Doubters #2: Are 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 the sections to be used to determine taxable income from sources within the United States?)
5) Specific Sources
Section 861 lists similar "items" of income to those in Section 61, but repeatedly uses the phrase "income from sources," without specifically describing what "sources" are meant. The regulations in Section 1.861-8 (the section "for determining taxable income from sources within the United States") begins by saying that Section 861(b) of the statutes describes "in general terms" how to determine taxable income from sources within the United States. These same regulations later specify that Section 861 is about items of income derived from "specific sources."
"Sections 861, 862, 863(a), and 863(b) are the four provisions applicable in determining taxable income from specific sources." [26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(3)(ii)]
In the first paragraph of Section 1.861-8 of the regulations (the section "for determining taxable income from sources within the United States"), it is again made clear that the section applies only to the listed "items" of income when derived from "specific sources."
"The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities…" [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)]
Again, a few paragraphs later, in defining the term "statutory grouping," these regulations again state that taxable income must come from a "specific source."
"…the term 'statutory grouping' means the gross income from a specific source or activity which must first be determined in order to arrive at 'taxable income' from which specific source or activity…" [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(4)]
In 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1) it is again made clear that Section 1.861-8 (the section "for determining taxable income from sources within the United States") is applicable only to income derived from "specific sources."
"…the determination of taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources or activities and which gives rise to statutory groupings [see previous citation] to which this section is applicable…" [26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)]
From these it is clear that a "source of income" referred to in sections 61 and 861 does not simply mean any activity from which income is derived. If it did, there would be no need for Section 861 and following, and related regulations, to "determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax." The following citations show that Section 1.861-8(f)(1) lists the "specific sources" of income subject to the income tax.
Again, the first paragraph of 26 CFR § 1.861-8 states the following (the meaning of "operative section" will be explained below):
"The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections." [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)]
The definition of "statutory grouping" (mentioned above) also refers to "paragraph (f)(1)" as the list of "specific sources."
"…the term 'statutory grouping' means the gross income from a specific source or activity which must first be determined in order to arrive at 'taxable income' from which specific source or activity under an operative section. (See paragraph (f)(1) of this section.)" [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(4)]
The regulations twice identify "paragraph (f)(1) of this section" (26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)) as the list of specific sources. Paragraph (f)(1) itself confirms this again, and then lists the "specific sources" subject to the income tax.
"The operative sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources or activities and which gives rise to statutory groupings to which this section is applicable include the sections described below.
(i) Overall limitation to the foreign tax credit…
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) DISC and FSC taxable income… [international and foreign sales corporations]
(iv) Effectively connected taxable income. Nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the United States…
(v) Foreign base company income…
(vi) Other operative sections. The rules provided in this section also apply in determining--
(A) The amount of foreign source items…
(B) The amount of foreign mineral income…
(C) [Reserved]
(D) The amount of foreign oil and gas extraction income…
(E) (deals with Puerto Rico tax credits)
(F) (deals with Puerto Rico tax credits)
(G) (deals with Virgin Islands tax credits)
(H) The income derived from Guam by an individual…
(I) (deals with China Trade Act corporations)
(J) (deals with foreign corporations)
(K) The amount of income from the insurance of U.S. risks…
(L) (deals with countries subject to international boycott)
(M) (deals with the Merchant Marine Act of 1936)" [26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)]
None of these "sources" apply to United States citizens living and working within the United States (federal possessions are considered "foreign" under the law). This is the only list of "sources" in Part I of Subchapter N, or the regulations thereunder, which (as the regulations say) "determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax."
The next subsection (1.861-8(g)) gives examples about how 26 CFR § 1.861-8 works, and states that "[i]n each example, unless otherwise specified, the operative section which is applied and gives rise to the statutory grouping of gross income is the overall limitation to the foreign tax credit under section 904(a)," again showing that there must be some "operative section" in order for the section to apply.
(Question for Doubters #3: Under 26 USC § 861 and 26 CFR § 1.861-8, is income taxable only if derived from "specific sources" related to international and foreign commerce (including federal possessions)?)
Your point is...?
His point is that section 861 gives specific sources of taxable income.As you notice,you don't see American citizens living and working in the USA on the list of specific sources.So far,the IRS hasn't come up with anything to dispute this.
Your point is...?
The point is to show people how the law defines taxable income.
Sorry to trouble you.
"Gross Income Defined"
All income earned by us peasants is considered "gross" to these bas*ards! In their eyes, we are GROSS! FMCDH
His point is that section 861 gives specific sources of taxable income.As you notice,you don't see American citizens living and working in the USA on the list of specific sources.
Oh, maybe that is because he selectively leaves out certain portions of the Code.
[CITE: 26CFR1.861-1] [Page 119-120]
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE (CONTINUED) Normal Taxes and Surtaxes (Continued)--
Table of Contents Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
(a) Categories of income.
Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax. These sections explicitly allocate certain important sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United States, as the case may be; and, with respect to the remaining income (particularly that derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the United States), authorize the Secretary or his delegate to determine the income derived from sources within the United States, either by rules of separate allocation or by processes or formulas of general apportionment. The statute provides for the following three categories of income:
(1) Within the United States. The gross income from sources within the United States, consisting of the items of gross income specified in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income allocated or apportioned to such sources in accordance with section 863(a). See Secs. 1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and Sec. 1.863-1. The taxable income from sources within the United States, in the case of such income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely [[Page 120]] be allocated to some item or class of gross income. See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter N - Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States
PART I - SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME
Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income
from sources within the United States:(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;EXCEPT that compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if -
(A) the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual temporarily present in the United States for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 90 days during the taxable year,
(B) such compensation does not exceed $3,000 in the aggregate, and
(C) the compensation is for labor or services performed as an employee of or under a contract with -(i) a nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or
(ii) an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or
a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or
place of business maintained in a foreign country
or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership,
or corporation,
In addition, except for purposes of sections 79 and 105 and subchapter D, compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual in connection with the individual's temporary presence in the United States as a regular member of the crew of a foreign vessel engaged in transportation between the United States and a foreign country or a possession of the United States.
In Summary, if you are a United States citizen, and receive compensation for labor or compensation for other activities(i.e. sources) in the United States you are subject to income taxes.
So far,the IRS hasn't come up with anything to dispute this.
Just a few tax evasion and failure to file convictions here and their for those who wish to try it:
Like S.A.P., you know that organization you are such a proud member of.
We already have a court decision and yes,we sued the IRS and got paid.
A few of SAP's so-called victories in the Court:
- "Save-a-Patriot" (John B. Kotmair) In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94);
- ("we have come to understand that ‘patriot’ may be a buzz-word for ‘tax protester’.")Kotmair v. CIR (6/19/86) 86 TC 1253;
- (awareness by perp that founder Kotmair had been convicted of tax evasion serves to negate good faith defense) US v. Crosson (ED Penn unpub 12/20/95);
- ("Save-a-Patriot" organization cited for contempt of court for its interference with a bankruptcy court proceeding) In re Weatherley (ED Penn unpub 7/15/93);
- (organization forbidden to accept money for its amateur advice to a litigant in bankruptcy court) In re Weatherley (Bankr. ED Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427;
- (in perhaps its only court victory, the organization described itself as a church, and claimed to possess a vial of holy oil from the Temple in Jerusalem, to perform weddings, (allegedly) subsidize incarcerated members who have "resisted and delayed the tyrants at every step through the criminal investigation and all other agency and court proceedings", sell tax-dodge publications as holy scriptures, and (generously) support Kotmair as their cleric, etc. Save-a-Patriot Fellowship v. US (D Md 1996) 962 F.Supp 695;
- Kotmair refused give testimony voluntarily for one of his followers who was prosecuted for multiple tax evasion. US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99);
Yep, "SAP" is certainly an excellent acronym for anyone associated with Mr. Kotmair and his organization. Note the court decision Mr. Kotmair got paid on(Managed to call themselves a tax exempt "church", or was it by chance an unrelated factor of IRS misbehaviour?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??
CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
That vaccuous argument didn't seem to help John Kotmair's son so very much now did it.
I know, he jess didn't follow your precise instructions!!
So far,the IRS hasn't come up with anything to dispute this.
Just a few tax evasion and failure to file convictions here and their for those who wish to try it:
Like S.A.P., you know that organization you are such a proud member of.
We already have a court decision and yes,we sued the IRS and got paid.
A few of SAP's so-called victories in the Court:
- "Save-a-Patriot" (John B. Kotmair) In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94);
- ("we have come to understand that ‘patriot’ may be a buzz-word for ‘tax protester’.")Kotmair v. CIR (6/19/86) 86 TC 1253;
- (awareness by perp that founder Kotmair had been convicted of tax evasion serves to negate good faith defense) US v. Crosson (ED Penn unpub 12/20/95);
- ("Save-a-Patriot" organization cited for contempt of court for its interference with a bankruptcy court proceeding) In re Weatherley (ED Penn unpub 7/15/93);
- (organization forbidden to accept money for its amateur advice to a litigant in bankruptcy court) In re Weatherley (Bankr. ED Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427;
- (in perhaps its only court victory, the organization described itself as a church, and claimed to possess a vial of holy oil from the Temple in Jerusalem, to perform weddings, (allegedly) subsidize incarcerated members who have "resisted and delayed the tyrants at every step through the criminal investigation and all other agency and court proceedings", sell tax-dodge publications as holy scriptures, and (generously) support Kotmair as their cleric, etc. Save-a-Patriot Fellowship v. US (D Md 1996) 962 F.Supp 695;
- Kotmair refused give testimony voluntarily for one of his followers who was prosecuted for multiple tax evasion. US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99);
Yep, "SAP" is certainly an excellent acronym for anyone associated with Mr. Kotmair and his organization. Note the court decision Mr. Kotmair got paid on(Managed to call themselves a tax exempt "church", or was it by chance an unrelated factor of IRS misbehaviour?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??
CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
That vaccuous argument didn't seem to help John Kotmair's son so very much now did it.
I know, he jess didn't follow your precise instructions!!
I know that you are a proponent for the abolishment of the income tax and its replacement with a national sales tax, but it was very fair of you to debunk again this stupid argument based on section 861. How many times will this stupid argument keep popping up? Some people never learn.
Don't waste my time because you don't even know how to read the code sections on your own post.LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL!You are a joke.
Don't waste my time
I don't reply for your sake, you are just shill for you favorite cause, Kotmair and Son, so you hardly need to waste your time reading what I have to say.
As far as reading the Code, I have provided the links for all to check the Statute and it's Regulations and underlying Case Law in their entirety so people may determine for themselves.
Fthose who care enough to look at the subject
objectively and without an eye to pushing a tax protest
organization that has a tendency to get their S.A.Ps(opps!
members) in Court and up the creek without a paddle I will
provide the following bit of history on the development of the
income tax as an excise tax in this country, and its adjudication
as a Constitutional tax to which American citizens are indeed
subject whether such tax be particularly palitable, fair or not.
Constitution for the United States of America:
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)
PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
"the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
U.S. v. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)
Therefore Congress operates on the basis:
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
Hence the Courts, inspite of all the tax protest hype of yourself and others like you, manage to muddle on sending thousands of otherwise good folk into purgatory over believing the hype of the confidence men luring them in and charging them often hundreds of dollars for memberships and materials that are little more than Clintonian word games to snag the uncritical.
One would do well to consider the plight of these folks who didn't seek out and objectively read the Court cites that the T.P. groups hand out as gospel. Most being nothing more the carefully selected partial quotations out of context and totally backward from the true state of affairs.
Here's a few that found out the hard way:
United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns is unclear.United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a"person" under the tax code.United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him, as "a sovereign citizen of the state of Nevada," to file income tax returns.Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, that there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of "income" is vague.Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority to impose a "direct" tax, that no law makes any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on "taxable income," and that "income" has no defined meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.
United States v. Ross, No. 93-1010 (7th Cir. 1995)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Indiana is not part of the United States, and because there were no regulations issued to implement the criminal statute under which he was convicted.United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
Argued that the district court did not have "inland jurisdiction," that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary, and that they were "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota.United States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)
Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxes because he has "the Status of Freeman and . . . has no Contractual, Quasi-Contractual or implied agreements with the Federal Government."United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over "sovereign citizens," that he was not a "taxpayer" under the federal tax laws, and that the word "includes" is a term of restriction, not expansion.United States v. McDonald, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that as a "white, natural born, state citizen," the income tax does not apply to him, that he is not a "person" or a "resident," and that the district court lacked jurisdiction.McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Mo. 1997)
Argued that a state court lacked jurisdiction over him because the flag in the courtroom had yellow fringe on it, thus converting it into the "maritime flag of war."United States v. Genger, No. 87-1043 (9th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the district court erroneously exercised admiralty jurisdiction over him, and that filing a federal tax return violated his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that they were non-resident aliens because Nebraska is not part of the United States, and that they did not fall within the provisions of the tax code.United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996)
Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees. Argued that as a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas," the district court lacked jurisdiction, that the case should be moved to "Our One Supreme Court for the Republic of Texas," and that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty.Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the IRS was not created by "positive law," that the tax code does not apply to "sovereign citizens," that the tax code is a bill of attainder, and that the district court lacks jurisdiction.United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a contract for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment rights.
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued that Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the District of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified lawfully.United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that IRS summonses are invalid without an OMB control number, that the IRS lacks authority to issue and enforce summonses because no Treasury Delegation Orders were published in the Federal Register, and that the district court has no jurisdiction.United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that he should be acquitted of tax evasion because the IRS failed to display OMB numbers on Form 1040 and because the IRS failed to publish Form 1040 in the Federal Register.United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990)
Argued that the IRS failed to comply with the publication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.United States v. Hartman, 915 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
Argued that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and that summonses from the I.R.S. cannot be enforced without implementing regulations.
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income, that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, and that tax assessments are takings.Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the income tax is a taking.In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987)
Argued that the federal income tax is a contract, and that he didn't owe any tax because he rescinded the contract.Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable income.Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial information from his income tax return.United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)
Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any privilege from a governmental agency.Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)
Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are "natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from an agency of government."United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the Sixteenth Amendment only allows taxing income from "sources," not persons, and that the word "includes" is a term of limitation, not expansion.United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)
Argued that "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to profit proceeding from property, and that he is not a "person" under the Internal Revenue Code.Valldejuli v. Social Security Admin., No. 94-10051 (N.D. Fla. 1994)
Argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing a "contract" with the Social Security Administration, and that he is a natural sovereign citizen of the United States who is not subject to the Social Security system.Snyder v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the I.R.S. is a private corporation and not part of the government of the United States.McKinney v. Regan, 599 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. La. 1984)
Argued that as a "Sovereign Individual," the "Common Law of the United States of America, a Republic" protected him from penalties for filing a frivolous tax return.
And we add a few more just for general interest:
US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060
"Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protester movement’s illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, ... because he acted upon [that claim he] now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he had been burned."
Income Taxes are "voluntary" NOT!:
- Wilcox v. CommIR (9th Cir 1988) 848 F2d 1007;
- US v. Tedder (10th Cir 1986) 787 F2d 540;
- US v. Foster [& Madge] (D Minn unpub 5/27/97);
- Gravitt v. US (ED Mich unpub 11/4/97);
- Ebert v. CIR (12/17/91) TC Memo 1991-629 aff'd (10th Cir 2/23/93) 986 F2d 1427(t);
- Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563;
- Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812;
- US v. Schiff (2d Cir 1989) 876 F2d 272
("to the extent that income taxes are said to be voluntary, however, they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, however, ... and the average citizen knows that the payment of income taxes is legally required.");
- Schiff v.US (2d Cir 1990) 919 F2d 830 cert.den 501 US 1238;
- Newman v. Schiff (8th Cir 1985) 778 F2d 460;
- Lonsdale v. US (10th Cir 1990) 919 F2d 1440;
- A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122;
- Koar v. US (SDNY unpub 8/14/98) 82 AFTR2d 6329, 98 USTC para 50748;
- Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157;
("Appellants' claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance.")
- US v. Gerads (8th Cir 1993) 999 F2d 1255 cert.den 510 US 1193;
("Federal tax obligations are imposed by federal statute and are not voluntary.")
- US v.G.D. Bell (ED Calif unpub 8/27/97) 80 AFTR2d 6455;
- US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060
("Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protester movement’s illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, ... because he acted upon [that claim he] now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he had been burned.");
- Liddane v. CIR (7/14/98) TC Memo 1998-259
("willful obtuseness");
- Graber v. US (SD Iowa 1997) 993 F.Supp 685, 80 AFTR2d 6223
("just plain goofy");
- Morgan v. US (MD Fla unpub 9/16/96) 78 AFTR2d 6633;
- Walker alias Theonaleth v. CIR (3/12/96) TC Memo 1996-124;
- US v. J.R. White (9th Cir unpub 12/20/90) 921 F2d 282(t)
("wholly without merit");
(perp convicted of tax evasion could not allege ineffective assistance on grounds his atty refused to argue that income tax was voluntary or that US citizens are "exempt from taxation being free individuals and not creatures of the govt.")
- US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99);
- In re Shugrue (Bankr., ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 394
("Apparently this Debtor feels that it is every other citizen's obligation to pay his share of the costs attendant to the running of the govt of the United States. He alleges he does not have to pay taxes because it is a voluntary system and he chooses not to participate. ... the court came to the rather quick and obvious conclusion that the words coming from the Debtor's mouth made no more sense than the words written on the Debtor's pleadings.");
- Alaska Computer Brokers v. Morton (D Alaska unpub 9/6/95) 76 AFTR2d 6458, 95 USTC para 50510;
- Hodges v. CIR (7/6/98) TC Memo 1998-242;
("the IRC, at 26 USC 1, says clearly that a tax is "imposed on the taxable income of every individual", which pretty much negatives the notion that income tax is either voluntary or contractual or applicable only to certain special populations.")
- Tornichio v. US (ND Ohio unpub 3/12/98) 81 AFTR2d 1377, 98 USTC para 50299;
- Ficalora v. CIR (2d Cir 1984) 751 F2d 85 cert.den 471 US 1005;
- Charczuk v. CIR (10th Cir 1985) 771 F2d 471;
("He denies having voluntarily assumed any obligation under the revenue laws. While I accept this latter assertion, it simply is not true that a citizen can 'opt out' of his or her obligations under the Internal Revenue Code.")
- US v. O'Ferrall (D Dela unpub 5/4/84) 54 AFTR2d 5315, 84 USTC para 9843;
tried to sue the govt for "involuntary servitude" because it would not allow them to "to opt out of the federal tax system" - "all of the appellants' claims are completely lacking in legal merit and are patently frivolous" and heavy fines imposed for frivolous litigation.
- Buckner et al v. US et al (10 Cir unpub 2/4/99) 172 F3d 62(t), 99 USTC para 50240, 83 AFTR2d 924;
- Carter v. Rubin (ND Calif unpub 12/28/95) 77 AFTR2d 1291
("These assertions are based on fundamental misconceptions of the established relationship of the citizen to the US govt under the Federal Constitution. It is the govt which decides for the people, not an individual who decides for himself, when a person shall be tax exempt, accusations of perjury notwithstanding. Likewise, it is the govt which decides for the people, not the individual who decides for himself, when a person is in fact a citizen of the US.");
"If you think paying taxes is voluntary, you may end up doing volunteer time in federal prison." Patrick Dunne, Can't just say No to income tax, Houston Chronicle, 14 April 1995, and quoted in Christopher S. Jackson, The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest, 31 Gonzaga Law Review 291 (1996)(also a good source on other tax evasion scams)
VOLUNTARY in the Fed's eyes means:
It's all VOLUNTARY which ever way yah want tah go.
Do whatever turns you on I guess. Some folks just like to walk over cliffs like lemmings.
Personally I prefer to toss the Income Tax, the IRS and the 16th amendment out. Instead of playing hide-n-seek with goons. Other people like to bash their head against the wall. So if you are one of the later go for it good riddence. As for myself I intend to see the last of the income tax statutes, the IRS, the 16th amendment and abolish the tax on incomes from the land.
You do as you wish.
Attention Commrade Geez!:
Apples don't equal oranges.
Items don't equal sources.
You CLEARLY haven't read this article in full, and you OBVIOUSLY haven't read ALL of the 861 regulations. There is no other logical explanation for your continued position.
Just as the IRS does with the ignorant, you fail to complete your analysis, you rely on incomplete research and do not consider the law - in this particular case the CFR -in its full construction. But the IRS does this on purpose, for obvious reasons. What then is your excuse?
The tax code was designed for people like you - those who don't care to are too afraid to perform complete due diligence. If you would just one time complete your research you would "discover" (finally!) the legal merit of the position of NITE and simultaneously "discover" how it differs from those of the beaten down "tax protestor" followers.
Ancient Geez means well. Ultimately we want the same thing, but we subscribe to totally opposite solutions. He wants to change the law; I say leave the law as it is, just administer it properly.
His solutions impose a legal liability where no legal liability previously existed.
In my personal view this is the NITE position in its most basic form:
1. Source
2. Evidence
3. Due Process of Law
To evaluate the facts for yourself, you must evaluate ALL the facts. Ignorance of the law is never a valid excuse.
You follow this stuff fairly closely, so, have you seen anything lately about the guy who held a press conference a month ago and ran a full page ad in the USA Today newspaper who claimed to have beaten the rap in a state court? Just curious. I haven't seen anything lately.
Ahhh! But sources do = activites. as the Case Law clearly provides. What ever else could "source" be in an "excise" tax, as the Supreme Court and Congress hold it to be. A tax levied on commercial and business activity, the measure of which is a portion of the income(revenue) the activity produces.
Thus any activity involving compensation paid from one person to another for service rendered is a taxable activity under the excise of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Your theories go down the tubes for lack of reason, lack of support in the statutes, definitly for lack of support in Congress, the Constitution, or the Courts.
You are left with nothing to stand on as:
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344,351 (1943)
"... courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344 (1943)
"The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases, which those words, in their ordinary acceptation, or in that sense in which the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend."United States v. Wiltberger, 5 US(Wheat), 76, 95.
"... but the words should be taken in such a sense, bent neither one way nor the other, as will best manifest the legislative intent.' The principle has been followed in United States v. Corbett, 215 U.S. 233, 242, 30 S.Ct. 81, 84; Donnelley v. United States, 276 U.S. 505, 512, 48 S.Ct. 400, 401; United States v. Giles, 300 U.S. 41, 48, 57 S.Ct. 340, 344, 81 S.Ct. 493."
Are you arguing that Congress does not intend to lay and collect an indirect tax, the measure of which is the individual United States citizens's income?
You are a total fool if you believe they do not; a nave and con artist if you know it and are deliberately leading others from the truth of the situation.
His solutions impose a legal liability where no legal liability previously existed.
Tell that to the Courts, who ultimately decide the issue. If you are lucky, you might be able to get an arrogant judge and inept prosecutor, and convince a Jury like the Harrel case, OTOH you might go down in glory as another martyr and gun fodder to the Tax.Protest. cause.
Personally I prefer to see the end of the income tax statues, the end of the use of the 2nd Plank of the Communist manifesto.
That way I don't, and neither will my daughter or her children have to worry about convince a Jury of a dubious and constrainted construction of statutory law, with a well versed and competent prosecutor on the other side.
This one was too easy, you didn't even break a sweat.
have you seen anything lately about the guy who held a press conference a month ago and ran a full page ad in the USA Today newspaper who claimed to have beaten the rap in a state court?
That was the Harrel case, over the collection of "State" income tax and not Federal.
Beating the Rap is precisely the manner in which the case was won. Harrel was lucky to get one or two tax protesters on his Jury to cause them to raise legal questions which an impatient and arrogant judge would not answer, and an inept investigation and prosecution provided sufficient leaway for "Reasonable Doubt".
Considering the reported circumstances and actions of the judge, and prosecution I would have very likely voted the same way as the Jury did myself.
Jury verdicts do not make precident, and can do nothing more than get a specific defendant off the hook and a bit of publicity. Otherwise O.J. Simpson's case would have removed murder 1 from the statutes of California.
Logan County Jury Acquits Harrell 5/26/00 Lincoln -
Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell of rural Latham was acquitted by a 12 person jury of the 4 count criminal felony charges of willful failure to file an Illinois State Income Tax form.
The actual trial began on Wednesday May 24th in the Logan County Circuit Court room, presided over by Senior Judge David "Slick" Coogan ("Slick is how the judge identifies himself) and closed on Friday after four hours of deliberation when the jury returned with four consecutive "not guilty" verdicts.
"We were in a heated debate" reported one unnamed juror, "but when the court refused, after our specific written request, to furnish us copies of the actual statutes, (that imposed the obligation on the defendant,) it didn't take long for all of us to see that something was wrong with the State's case. "That was not all the court refused to let the jury see," added Jerry Barringer, Harrell's attorney. "The court, at the request of the Illinois State's attorney, denied the jury access to evidence that already had been introduced and accepted." "Astoundingly, even the Bill of Indictment was denied to the jury," chimed in Barringer's legal assistant Lindsey Springer, "Also denied were jury instructions sanctioned by the Supreme Court and even a VCR recorder to play the video tape that Whitey had made of his meeting with the CID agent."
"I've seen a lot of tyranny in the courts, but never anything so blatent as what I saw here over the last two days," added Bob Minark, an Indiana friend of Harrell's.
The 4 criminal felony charges had been brought against Harrell in 1997 and just came to trial this past week. Harrell had submitted numerous motions in a case that saw both assigned judges and assigned state's attorneys resign or recuse themselves. All Harrell's motions were denied.
The case started back in early 1997 when Harrell was approached by Illinois Dept. of Revenue Criminal Investigation Division (CID) agent Robert Craner, who asked him for an interview. The testimony was that Harrel refused until he had witnesses present and a video camera set up at the local library where he later video taped a 45 minute meeting with Craner. On the video, which was shown to the jury at the trial, Harrel specifically pointed out that he could find no section of the Illinois statutes that obligated him to file an Illinois income tax return. He presented Craner with numerous documents which he identified as outlines of statutes and regulations and "administrative code" which he said he searched to no avail in finding any obligation that would apply to him. Craner accepted the documents. The tape showed that Craner promised Harrell at least five different times, to produce the statutes that made Harrell liable and get answers to Harrell's questions. The testimony later showed that Craner didn't do that and instead went back to the Grand Jury to testify that Harrell was a resident of Logan County who failed to file Illinois state income tax forms. Unbeknownst to Harrel, at the time of the interview, Craner was also acting as a Grand Jury investigator. "He never told me," said Harrell, "He never read me a Miranda warning. He just promised to get me the information, but instead went back to the Grand Jury to get an Indictment."
Grand Jury Transcripts show that Craner testified that Harrel, at the library meeting, had nothing to offer in his defense of why he didn't file a tax return, but the video tape brought Craner's credibility into serious question. Harrell testified in his own defense and verified his many efforts to obtain the law that made him liable for the income tax or how his activity was privledged. The prosecution brought out on cross examination that Harrell had filed many law suits in the past and that those suits were dismissed in both the state and federal courts. In an attempt to prove knowledge, the state also elicited that Harrell had previously filed tax returns previouslly. Harrell's Attorney Barringer likened that to believing in Santa Claus when you were a child and then gaining knowledge of the fact that Santa Claus is a fantasy as you got older and wiser. Barringer's questioning of Agent Craner as to his belief in Santa Claus brought an objection from the State's attorney which was sustained by the judge without any recognition of humor.
Harrel, 62, had worked for the United States Post Office as a rural mail carrier and also received a pension from Caterpiller from where he retired in 1990. Asked if his case will set a preccedent, Harrel said, "Legally, No, but I certainly hope it sets the precedent that more people question the loss of their rights and property whenever government claims its the law. I feel sure this jury will be thinking twice."
Interestingly, even after the specifc request of the jury, neither the state or the court ever did produce any statute showing Harrel had any obligation. "We don't have anything to say at this time other than Mr. Harrell was very lucky and we will be watching his activities carefully," stated an assistant State's Attorney who asked not to be identified. Harrel plans to keep up his efforts to expose, what he says, is the one of the largest frauds ever committed on the people of Illinois. "Al Capone couldn't hold a candle to these guys," Harrell commented when talking about the State's claim of a requirement for wage earners and independent contractors to file a state income tax form. Harrell's bail bond has been released and the funds obtained from Harrell to gurantee the bond will be returned. No further court actions are pending against Harrell at this time, but Harrell anticipates further actions by himself against both the state Department of Revenue and the federal Internal Revenue Service.
This one was too easy, you didn't even break a sweat.
Practice, these guys manage to give me alot of practice and cause me to dig into the case law, statues, and history to find out what's going on.
To tell the truth I was in their camp at one time until I started to do indepth legal research based on their common quotations and theories they toss out to build a defense for myself. If I ever got hauled into Court on these issues should I have chosen to go any of the routes T.P.rs have suggested.
The result of that study decided me, if I were to protest the income tax I had best push to see its repeal and prohibition, instead of playing paper games with the IRS and Courts. Ultimately that will land you in the hoosegow once they decide to get on your tail and would make no difference toward the ultimate goal of ending the income tax. In fact would continue to lead to ever tightening of the reigns and erosion of constitutional protections. There is no true legal defense that will hold up in a court room, other than poverty sufficient to not owe the tax in the first place. You might buffalo a Jury as in the Harrel case, but that is a matter of luck of the draw and the capabilities of the prosecution to present their case.
If I were a prosecutor in such a case, these people would not have a snowball's chance in h'll. Frankly income tax prosecution is one kind work I would refuse to do, I couldn't live with the results as I am opposed to the income tax in any form and intend to see the end of it's use in this nation.
In response to Thorton's remark about the income tax:
He wants to change the law; I say leave the law as it is, just administer it properly.
The income tax is a corrupting influence over the people and the political process in this country, as the inane theories of the T.P. proponents and rich vs. poor demagoguery of the politions make clear example of. It is a tax that must be destroyed and prohibited or we will see the ultimate dissolution of this nation by anarchy into dictatorship. It engenders contemp of law and causes question of the very founding basis of the nation, its influence is pernicous, divisive and ultimately destructive, it has to go.
There was good reason why Karl Marx and the Communist Party makes the progressive/graduated income tax the 2nd plank of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848. We should never forget nor overlook the philosophical underpinnings of that choice:
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "
have you seen anything lately about the guy who held a press conference a month ago and ran a full page ad in the USA Today newspaper
We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education (Robert L. Schulz) ran the ad:
"Robert Schulz, chairman of the Foundation, and Joseph Banister, a former special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS (accompanied by a videographer) delivered copies of the Remonstrance to designated officials of the three branches."
Robert L. Shultz is a pro-se litigant, who looses alot and apparently has no particular claim to fame other than he files frivolous civil rights cases and looses, one good example that is found on the web: http://law.touro.edu/2ndCircuit/December96/s96-76250.html.
The only case mentioned in the Shultz's ad was:
"The [5th Amendment] privilege
protects against compelled
testimonial communications?."
U.S. v Conklin (1994), WL 504211 (10th Cir. Colo)"
Since the ad, there does not appear to be much follow up, the ad itself appear to be more a leader into Shultz's organization which is hawking for "contributions" and selling Conklin's book.
What Conklin and "We The People Foundation" don't provide in this partial and out of context quote:
" Plaintiff misunderstands the nature of the fifth amendment privilege. It protects against compelled testimonial communications. See United States v, Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir. 1991), quoting Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409, 96 S. Ct. 1569, 1580 (1976). Plaintiff has wholly failed to persuade me that truthful completion of the IRS Form 1040 or any related forms would tend to incriminate him. "
Claiming a victory which did not occur, as is Conklin's normal condition and apparently Shultz's as well:
WILLIAM T. CONKLIN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 89 N 1514
Filed May 2, 1994Plaintiff William T. Conklin is a "known tax protestor like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington," to use the self-description contained in "PLaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Govt's [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment" (filed Dec. 11, 1989). He filed this action to get a refund of the $75 he paid towards a $500 penalty assessed by the Internal Revenue Service for filing a frivolous income tax return. His basic position appears to be two-fold. First, he claims, he did not sign the return because he was advised that he could not do so without waiving his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; rather, he gave the IRS a power of attorney to sign the return, if this could be accomplished without a waiver of such rights. See generally "Complaint (Jury Trial Demanded)" (filed Sept. 5, 1989). Second, since he "did not sign the return, [he] did not file it" and cannot, therefore, be penalized for "filing" a frivolous return. United States' Mem. in Supp. of the Renewed Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. E (letter from plaintiff to IRS dated Aug. 9, 1989) (filed Oct. 2, 1990). He also claims that numerous procedural gaffes on the part of the IRS preclude imposition of the penalty.
At the beginning, we see how this thing is going. Shall we continue? A little more ... [skipping some boring stuff]
With this general background in mind, I turn to plaintiff's specific contentions. He first asserts that his refusal to sign his 1987 Form 1040 is proper on the ground that his signature would amount to a waiver of his fifth amendment rights. This is not the law. Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1985). In Betz, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the Government where a taxpayer sought a refund of the "frivolous return" penalty in 26 U.S.C.A. section 6702 (West 1989), assessed against him after he filed a return without providing any information on which tax liability could be computed. Plaintiff's argument in Betz, like Conklin's argument in this case, was a general Fifth Amendment objection to the tax return. According to the Tenth Circuit, it is "well-settled that the Fifth Amendment general objection is not a valid claim of constitutional privilege." Betz, 753 F.2d at 835. Not only did the Tenth Circuit affirm summary judgment, but the court went on to award attorney fees and double costs against the plaintiff for filing a legally frivolous appeal."[T]his Court has imposed sanctions where this broad Fifth Amendment privilege has been asserted." Id.
Although Conklin did provide enough information to calculate his taxes (unlike Betz, who provided no information), another court has found that the deliberate failure to sign a return constitutes furnishing legally insufficient information under the frivolous return penalty provision. In Schneider v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 611 (E.D. Mich. 1984), the failure to sign a tax return, even though the return was accurate in all other respects, was held to warrant the imposition of the $500 penalty for a frivolous tax return.
Plaintiff argues that his classification by the IRS as an illegal tax protester justifies invocation of his fifth amendment privilege. This classification, he claims, is a clear signal that he is "confronted by substantial and `real', and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53, 88 S. Ct. 697, 705 (1968). Plaintiff misunderstands the nature of the fifth amendment privilege. It protects against compelled testimonial communications. See United States v, Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir. 1991), quoting Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409, 96 S. Ct. 1569, 1580 (1976). Plaintiff has wholly failed to persuade me that truthful completion of the IRS Form 1040 or any related forms would tend to incriminate him.
Plaintiff's argument that there were no OMB numbers on the assessment forms, Compl. paragraph 18, is factually incorrect, and his later argument that OMB numbers were incorrect is legally irrelevant, as is his challenge to the assessment procedure. His argument that he was not mailed a copy of the assessment within sixty days is undercut by the fact that he attached a copy of the notice he alleges he never received as Exhibit 9 to the Complaint. See United States' Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for an Order Deferring Consideration of the United States' Mot. for Summ. J. at 2. I have also reviewed all of plaintiff's other arguments. I do not believe that the case law supports those arguments. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Government's motions for summary judgment filed August 31, 1990, and October 2, 1990, are GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed August 9, 1990, is DENIED.
3. All other motions are denied as moot.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 1994.
BY THE COURT:
EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM
United States District Judge
Found this at nettaxs.com, Under their FAQ page regarding Conklin
"William T. Conklin claims to be successful in fighting the IRS, and has described himself as a "known tax protester like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington." Conklin v. United States, KTC 1994-259, Case No. 89-N-1514 (D. Col. 1994). Unfortunately, his claims of success are contradicted by the public record, because he has lost every case on record. See, e.g., Conklin v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 41 (1988); Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1992-318; Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-87.
Cases claimed as wins by William T. Conklin:
Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492
United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265
Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318
Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d 1032
Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027
Tavery v. United States, Civ. No. 87-Z-180, USDC Colorado "
I Recommend reading Otto Skinner's research into Bannister, and Conklin. Gives a good summary of the Conklin cases and he will even send you copies of the case filings and judgements for your own review for the cost of printing and mailing them to you.
http://ottoskinner.com/a-banister.html
"Now let's get back to Banister's book. On page 8, he states:
- In order to understand Conklin's victory, ...
Two paragraphs down, he states:
- Conklin's victories focused my attention on the fact that American taxpayers, without realizing it, apparently waive their 5th Amendment rights every time they submit information on their federal tax returns.
What victory? What victories? I believe that what should be apparent to any CID agent, is that the Fifth Amendment argument as an excuse for not filing tax returns has been failing individuals since long before 1980.
On page 11, Banister discusses another Conklin case (not one of the cases listed above) where Conklin had filed unsigned returns and was hit with a $500 penalty for filing a frivolous return. (Study 26 U.S.C. 6702 and you will understand the reason for the $500 penalty.) Banister states:
- Conklin even gave the Internal Revenue Service a power of attorney to sign the returns for him if they could do so without waiving his 5th Amendment rights.
This may sound impressive, but I do not believe any IRS person has the authority to sign a return that an individual submits; with or without a power of attorney. (In my opinion, to expect an IRS person to sign such a document is down right stupid.)
Banister goes on to say that Conklin sued in federal court, and that Judge Nottingham eventually ruled against him. This Conklin loss is apparently supposed to mean that Conklin proved his Fifth Amendment argument. Is the reader supposed to believe that a loss is a win? That a loss is a victory? I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of double speak within the patriot community.
In his book, Banister refers to Bill Conklin's book, Why No One Is Required to File Tax Returns. At page 38 of this book, Conklin is discussing Tavery v. United States, 32 F.3d 1423 (10th Cir. 1994). Tavery (Conklin's spouse) was arguing that information on her tax return should not have been used in Conklin's contempt of court case regarding his eligibility for appointment of counsel. Both the district court and the appellate court ruled against her.
Still at page 38, Conklin states:
- It is clear in this particular situation that Ms. Tavery waived her Fifth Amendment protected rights when she filed the tax return and disclosed the information that the government allowed into evidence. Could the government have used Ms. Tavery's tax return information against her if she had been compelled to submit it? Of course not, if the Fifth Amendment means anything.
Good grief! What kind of sophistry is this? The Fifth Amendment states:
- No person shall be " compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"
This means that no person can be required to provide evidence that would tend to incriminate him, and which could be used against him in a criminal case.
Hello. Anybody home? The information was used against Tavery in a civil case and not a criminal case. No information was being used against anyone in a criminal case. Certainly no information was being used against Tavery in any criminal case. And providing she had not supplied false information on her return, or supplied any self-incriminating evidence of some other kind of criminal act, she had not incriminated herself. Since she did not supply information that would tend to incriminate her (in other words, she did not provide information that might get her convicted for a crime), she did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights, contrary to what Conklin claims.
At page 31 of his book, Conklin states:
- I am a Communication Expert and have made an extensive study of the morpho-syntax of English. I have a Master's Degree from the University of Colorado in Communications and I have over fourteen years of experience teaching English and Communications at the elementary, junior-high, high school, and college levels.
Give me a break! Does Conklin not understand the difference between a civil case and a criminal case? Does he not understand the difference between incriminating evidence and information that is not incriminating? (Maybe I should be glad that I only have a Bachelor of Science degree and actually struggled with English, my one and only language.)
I know a lot of people have been led to believe in this Fifth Amendment argument. But these people do not bother to actually study the cases upon which the promoters supposedly rely. By simply believing what someone says a case says has landed a lot of people in jail. Most of these promoters are quite clever at leading people down a primrose path to legally invalid conclusions.
Who are some of the other people who have not only promoted the same kind of flawed information about the Fifth Amendment that Conklin has, but who are also promoting Joe Banister as if he is a wonderful addition to the freedom movement?"
There is alot more but I'm sure you will get the picture.
Thank you for posting Title 26 861-1. It is very specific about income from within the United States.
I have posted below the definition of 'State' and 'United States' as defined in Title 26, section 3121(e) Definitions.
Note that none of the 50 states are listed in the definition of state. See also definition of 'American employer' (h). According to section 3121, section 861-1 applies only to those who live and or work within or without the 'United States' as defined by section 3121.
SECTION 3121
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter -
(1) State
The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States ,
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a
citizen of the United States.
(h) American employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "American employer" means an employer which is -
(1) the United States or any instrumentality thereof,
(2) an individual who is a resident of the United States,
(3) a partnership, if two-thirds or more of the partners are residents of the United States,
(4) a trust, if all of the trustees are residents of the United States, or
(5) a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any State.
comments anybody?
Let's try this:
The basis for the income tax is 26 USC and its regulations found at 26 CFR. In this debate at least, let's try to stay focused on the statutes and regulations for the time being. Congress has gone to great lengths in constructing statutes. For longer than I suspect even you have been alive, the Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the law are the law and I think we agree on this point.
You almost exclusively focus your position on case law. Just like the IRS - you don't care to debate the construction of the statutes. If you are going to refute the claims I presented, you must first do so with the statutes themselves. So for now please first concentrate on the statutes and regulations presented in the article I posted and then we'll deal with your plethora of (mostly non-applicable) case law afterward.
OK, so the Supreme Court says we must start with the statutes. There is no interpretation of laws by any court including the U.S. Supreme Court. The laws simply mean what the words in them they say. The following is a good list to keep and treasure. The U.S. Supreme Court cases below reveal this fact (please forgive the shoddy formatting):
"When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction--that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there-is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US ____, p. ____, 117 L.Ed 2nd 391(1992)
"Rules of statutory construction are to be invoked as aids to the ascertainment of the meaning or application of words otherwise obscure or doubtful. They have no place, as this court has many times held, except in the domain of ambiguity." Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 414, 421, 44 L. Ed. 219, 222, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 155; United States v. Barnes, 222 U. S. 513, 518, 519, 56 L. Ed. 291-293, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 117. Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States., 261 US 514, pp. 517.
"In construing a federal statute, it is presumable that Congress legislates with knowledge of the United States Supreme Court's basic rules of statutory construction." MCNARY v HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, 498 US 479, 112 L Ed 2d 1005, 111 S Ct. 888, (1991)
As in all cases involving statutory construction, "our starting point must be the language employed by Congress," Reiter v Sonotone Corp., 442 US 330, 337, 60 L Ed 2d 931, 99 S Ct. 2326 (1979) (emphasis added), and we assume "that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used." Richards v United States, 369 US 1, 9, 7 L Ed 2d 492, 82 S Ct. 585 (1962)
Thus "[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 US 102, 108, 64 L Ed 2d 766, 100 S Ct. 2051 (1980). (remarks of Sen. Dirksen). As Senator (emphasis added) "When the terms of a statute are unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete except in rare and exceptional circumstances." FREYTAG v. COMMISSIONER, 501 US 115 L Ed 2d 764, pp. 767 - 9/73
"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue, judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning--in all but the most extraordinary circumstance--is finished; courts must give effect to the clear meaning of statutes as written." Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 US 120 L Ed 2d 379, 112 S Ct. 2589 (1992)
"It is not a function of the United States Supreme Court to sit as a super-legislature and create statutory distinctions where none were intended." AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. v PATTERSON, 456 US 63, 71 L Ed 2d 748, 102 S Ct. 1534
"(T)he court's task is to determine whether the language the legislators actually enacted has a plain, unambiguous meaning." Beecham v. United States, 511 US 128 L Ed 2d 383 (1994)
"The United States Supreme Court cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute." FEDERAL TRADE COM. v SIMPLICITY PATTERN CO., 360 US 55, p. 55, 475042/56451
"The starting point in any endeavor to construe a Statute is always the words of the Statute itself; unless Congress has clearly indicated that its intentions are contrary to the words it employed in the Statute, this is the ending point of interpretation." Fuller v. United States 615 F. Supp. 1054 (D.C. Cal 1985) , West's Key 188 quoting Richards v. United States 369 US 1, 9, 82 S. Ct. 585, 590, 7 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1962)
"The starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself; absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." PRODUCT SAFETY COMM'N v. GTE SYLVANIA, 447 US 102, 64 L Ed 2d 766, 100 S Ct. 2051 (1980)
"Words used in the statute are to be given their proper signification and effect." Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 115, 25 L. Ed. 782, 783.
"The construction of a statute by those charged with its execution should be followed unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong, especially when Congress has refused to alter the administrative construction, and such deference is particularly appropriate where an agency's interpretation involves issues of considerable public controversy and Congress has not acted to correct any misperception of its statutory objectives." CBS, INC. v FCC, 453 US 367, p. 367, 69 L Ed 2d 706, p. 709 190155/564515
"We are not at liberty to construe any statute so as to deny effect to any part of its language. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that significance and effect shall, if possible, be accorded to every word. As early as in Bacon's Abridgment, § 2, it was said that 'a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word, shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.' This rule has been repeated innumerable times." Justice Strong, United States v. Lexington Mill & E. Co., 232 US 399, pp. 409. (1914)
This fact only underscores our duty to refrain from reading a phrase into the statute when Congress has left it out. " '[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another ..., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.' " Russello v United States, 464 US 16, 23, 78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983) (citation omitted). KEENE CORP. v UNITED STATES, 508 US 124 L Ed 2d 118, 113 S Ct. 1993.
While you're coming up with the statutes and regs to refute the claims in the article presented (good luck!), please keep the following in mind:
Another vitally important point: Before one can go to court to settle a dispute one must first exhaust administrative due process. This means among other things making contentions of factual nature based on the construction of the statutes, examining evidence and confronting adverse witnesses. What the IRS usually does is COMPLETELY IGNORE the early stages of the administrative process - that is, when ignorant people allow them to get away with it. Though one might think this is not how government agencies are supposed to work in America, this is not necessarily wrong because the Supreme Court says an individual doesn't have rights unless that individual asserts them. The Congress addressed this "lack of playing by the rules" matter, after hearing of numerous criminal abuses of law by the IRS, by writing into law the Taxpayer Bill of Rights I, II and III. For example, among other things TBR I expressly states that the IRS must inform you of the complete and full administrative procedure when it attempts to impose its claims on an individual and the individual wants to contend those claims, and TBR II, among other things, mandates immediate job loss and civil penalties of up to $1.0 million (or more) for any IRS employee that is found guilty of denying due process. Despite the Congress' helpful actions, the IRS continues to try to ignore these fundamental requirements of law every chance it gets, especially when allowed to get away with it. The Congress has provided the tools (laws) that the people need to deal effectively with the Gestapo, but the people have to use them - the Congress won't do it for them. Forcing the IRS to provide complete administrative due process is one of the primary components of the NITE position.
You know better than I do that our government today will do whatever it damn well pleases as long as it can get away with it. Government of, by and for the People? Honesty and integrity in government? What a load! Our current tax system, as it is practiced today, completely sucks. On this point we agree. And individually having to battle the IRS over the construction, application and enforcement of the law is not the ideal situation, but it is the only one available currently. Again, it's not the law that is the problem, the problem is the application of the existing law by the IRS and the common mindset (lack of knowledge and fear fo the IRS) of We the People.
I am all for discussing alternatives to the present system, especially with you because of your sincere desire to correct the problem. To that end, I have two questions:
1. What incentive does the government have today to change its present taxation system?
2. How does an alternative system correct the reason behind the need for the income tax (that being the Fed and its bogus monetary system)?
It is my understanding that there are numerous definitions throughout the Code for 'United States' and for 'Citizen' for that matter. I believe it has been well proven in the courts that "taxpayers" who argued they aren't liable because of one particular definition of such terms invariably get burned.
This is just speculation, but I would guess 'ol Ancient Geeeez could respond to your reply with a thousand pages of case law saying the same thing.
Just out of curiosity, why do mention or have interest in these definitions?
I think the point is this - OUR TAX SYSTEM SUCKS !! We have been duped by a bunch of bastards that call themselves REPRESENTATIVES. We have let it happen to ourselves by giving them power and control over every single facet of our lives.
When the sheeple decide to wake up and TAKE BACK what is rightfully theirs by force or otherwise, NOTHING, let me repeat that..
N O T H I N G ! !
will happen. We can talk about it all we want but until REAL action is done it will stay the same.
I suggested a long time ago about getting a grassroots effort together to simply not file returns on April 15th and have public burnings of tax returns at every post office in the nation to get these assholes attention. Until enough people get pissed off about it NOTHING will happen.
There, I've said my piece and I'm still madder than hell !!!
Do you know of other definitions in Title 26 for State and United States? I couldn't find any.
No, I am not aware of any other definitions within Title 26. I should have been more clear, but I was referring to the entire Code in my earlier reply.
Check that. I found another chapter for the definition of 'State' and 'United States'. Perhaps this will help clear up the confusion,....
7701. Definitions
(9) United States
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
The only way the sheeple will ever wake up is if they become educated. But they have to be willing to learn, and I hope that by the time they do come around in sufficient numbers it won't be too late.
To this end, information and tangible results go along way in getting folks motivated. I can say from personal experience that people's eyes and minds honestly begin to open up to the income tax hoax when they see actual refund checks.
Thank God AlWhore invented the Internet because now the sheeple (at least for now) have access to true, unfiltered information, including forums like FreeRepublic. The Internet is the greatest research tool ever invented by man.
I'm an idealist, so I believe this battle can be won. If not, then maybe its time to feed the hogs. As things stand today, however, it has to happen one person (or ideally one employer) at a time.
I have posted below the definition of 'State' and 'United States' as defined in Title 26, section 3121(e) Definitions.
Note that none of the 50 states are listed in the definition of state.
Please note the following definition of "includes" and "including" expressly applicable to all of Title 26. Courts do not buy that arguement no matter how you try to approach your theory.
Refer to: 26 U.S.C. s 7701(c) (Supp. V 1993), which states that "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title [i.e. Title 26] shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."
United States v. Condo, 741
F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued the word "includes" is a term of
limitation, not expansion.
"The word "includes" expands, not limits, the definition of 'person' to these entities."
United States v. Steiner, 963
F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)
Argued the word "includes" is a term of
restriction, not expansion.
"Steiner argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is a sovereign citizen of the state of California. It is well settled that federal district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses against the United States. 18 U.S.C. s 3231. Crimes defined in Title 26 of the United States Code are included in the offenses over which the district court has original exclusive jurisdiction. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir.1986). Steiner also argued that the word "includes", which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court's jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir.1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985), in which this court held that the word "includes" is one of expansion, not limitation.
Albers v. Internal Revenue Service,
No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued they were non-resident aliens because Nebraska is
not part of the United States
"The Schroeders also argue that Nebraska is not a State as that term is defined by 26 U.S.C. ss 3121(e)(1) and (2), 4612(a)(4)(A), and 7701(a)(9) and (10) (Supp. V 1993). The Schroeders in citing these statutes in support of their position, fail to note that these sections define the stated term (for example, "State" and "United States" in s 3121(e)(1) & (2), "United States" in s 4612(a)(4)(A), and "United States" and "State" in s 7701(a)(9) & (10)) to be more inclusive than might otherwise be commonly understood. This result is easily reached by reading each of these sections in conjunction with the definition of "includes" and "including" contained in 26 U.S.C. s 7701(c) (Supp. V 1993), which states that "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title [i.e. Title 26] shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." Thus, the definition of "State" clearly includes what would be its commonly understood meaning--one of the fifty states forming a part of the entire United States. So, too, with "United States," the Union and sovereign entity produced through the association of all of the states. The Schroeders attempt, unsuccessfully, to remove from the language of the statutes its commonly understood meaning and usage.
United States v. Sato, 704 F.
Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the
District of Columbia and other federal areas,
"Defendants argue that Clause 17[Constitution Article 1 Section 8] limits the legislative power of Congress such that the only geographical areas over which Congress may legislate, or may exercise its power of taxation, are those areas described in Clause 17. This position is contrary to both the natural reading of the Constitution and the case law. Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. "[T]he word 'exclusive' was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states." District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953). See also Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 263, 83 S.Ct. 426, 437, 9 L.Ed.2d 292 (1963); Black Hills Power and Light Co. v. Weinberger, 808 F.2d 665, 668 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 73, 98 L.Ed.2d 36 (1987). Similarly, it is clear that the power of the Congress to collect taxes, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, [FN2] is an independent power which is not limited by the other specific powers enumerated in Section 8. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65-66, 56 S.Ct. 312, 319, 80 L.Ed. 477 (1936). It is thus readily apparent that Congress' power to tax extends beyond the exclusive legislative districts contemplated by Clause 17. Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Clause 17 is denied.
Please close your tags.
Geezer, I don't think I have ever seen anyone as happy and overjoyed to be a slave as you are.
You almost exclusively focus your position on case law. Just like the IRS - you don't care to debate the construction of the statutes.
I have no interest in Your construction of the statutes, only the Court's construction is what flies in the Courtroom.
If you are going to refute the claims I presented, you must first do so with the statutes themselves.
I do not need to refute the claims you present: The Courts have already done the job.
So for now please first concentrate on the statutes and regulations presented in the article I posted and then we'll deal with your plethora of (mostly non-applicable) case law afterward.
OK, so the Supreme Court says we must start with the statutes.
The Courts start with the Statutes, we first look at the statutes of interest then determine what the Courts have and are going to do with it when we get dragged up before them. Any other approach is called a certain ticket to fines and jail.
Sorry we do not play that game, the Courts are the final arbiter of the meaning of the words and phrases used with every statute.
Neither your nor my opinion of the matter is worth a hill of beans insofar as establishing a defense in a Court of Law.
While you're coming up with the statutes and regs to refute the claims in the article presented (good luck!), please keep the following in mind:
Sorry, but the pole star of any construction of a statute is legislative intent, insofar as it can be fit withing the constraints of the Constitution. I note you have left this prime factor of construction out of your littany of rules concerning words and language of statute.
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344,351 (1943)
"... courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344 (1943)
"The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases, which those words, in their ordinary acceptation, or in that sense in which the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend."United States v. Wiltberger, 5 US(Wheat), 76, 95.
"... but the words should be taken in such a sense, bent neither one way nor the other, as will best manifest the legislative intent.' The principle has been followed in United States v. Corbett, 215 U.S. 233, 242, 30 S.Ct. 81, 84; Donnelley v. United States, 276 U.S. 505, 512, 48 S.Ct. 400, 401; United States v. Giles, 300 U.S. 41, 48, 57 S.Ct. 340, 344, 81 S.Ct. 493."
Geezer, I don't think I have ever seen anyone as happy and overjoyed to be a slave as you are.
He's not a slave, he's on the dole...and he thinks it comes from Clinton.
Noise versus facts.
I am all for discussing alternatives to the present system, especially with you because of your sincere desire to correct the problem. To that end, I have two questions:
1. What incentive does the government have today to change its present taxation system?
The same incentive that the people of the United States have. abusive nature of the the income tax, and its inevitable adverse effect on the fabric of a society. The issue is one of the electorate's desire to institute change, not some nebulous government pontificating on high. The incentive is provided by the Voter pounding on Congress Critter's doors.
You don't pound on the Congress Critter, no change because no one wants change. You pound on Congress Critters, change will take place because CCs like to keep their cushy jobs.
The issue in reality is irrelavent as either the change takes place and incentive is moot; Or the change is held off to another generation, another time, and the incentive is still moot. I work for change because it pleases me to do so.
2. How does an alternative system correct the reason behind the need for the income tax (that being the Fed and its bogus monetary system)?
Any tax system can retrieve dollars from the economy, monetary policy implemented through tax policy is ineffective and destructive to a market based economy and should not be engaged in. Countries that try to contol economies through tax policy, end up politicizing the process diverting into social control and not achieving anything of value for economic stability or control of inflation.
The Fractional Reserve monetary system is kept under control through limitations imposed by mainaining a fractional reserve. in the present system that works out to be approximately 10% of all accounts must be held in reserve, which prevents the growth of monetary aggregates of greater than 10:1 over reserves. A higher reserve requirement shinks the money supply, a lower one allows the money supply to expand. That is how a fractional reserve system works. Even an asset based system such as the gold standard must have limits on reserve requirements for banks and loan institutions to prevent the expansion of money substitute debt instruments from flooding the system for lack of loan discipline.
Geezer, I don't think I have ever seen anyone as happy and overjoyed to be a slave as you are.
You are indeed a fool, Rivero. I certainly do not intend to stand in the way of anything you wish to do. Go for it. It's all your baby.
I work to end the income tax permanently. You go play your Rambo fantasies, I'm not interested.
He's not a slave, he's on the dole...and he thinks it comes from Clinton
I bleed the Dragon for all it's worth Looey, and it all comes right out of YOUR pocket. Clinton et. Al, just likes to take credit. The real fault is all yours because you fight to maintain the status quo, to keep an income tax and statutes in place.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Another vitally important point: Before one can go to court to settle a dispute one must first exhaust administrative due process.
In the words of one of your own N.I.T.E/taxgate,(i.e. Thurston
Bell) sources;
Snake Oil & Myths.
The problem lies in knowing the proper legal position, as the Department of Justice can haul you into court on any misstep in the positition you operate from. Infact said Department has been known to go to court just because it thinks it can win.
That is why "The litmus test of any argument is: Can it be substantiated in court so that it can be argued?"
You ought to heed the warning of your own sources in that point, to ignore it will leave your hind parts flapping in the breeze when the real rubber meets the mat.
I tend to believe that there are not many definitions within the code for 'United States' and 'State'. After all, how many definitions could there be? (I have found and posted two: 26 USC section 3121 and chapter 79)
The assumption here is that we, as Americans, would infer that what is meant when we read the word 'State' or 'United States' are the 50 named states and the union they form.
However, the definition within Title 26 says no such thing! Not one single definition for 'State' names any of the 50 states! Incredible!
According to Title 26, since I do not live in Washington D.C. or any federal area, nor do I conduct business with the federal government, I do not live nor work in the United States nor do I work for an American employer!
Amazing! (and dubious!)
However, the definition within Title 26 says no such thing! Not one single definition for 'State' names any of the 50 states! Incredible!
Better look again and pay attention to what the Courts have to say about it, cause they get the ultimate say over the disposition of your case, which you seem to be over looking.
By the way the definition of "State" is a constitutional term not a "term of art" and is left to the Courts through common & popular meaning to define, not statutory language:
"Unless an intention to the contary is indicated, words used in a constitution will generally be interpreted in there natural or popular, as distinguished from a technical meaning."
16 Corpus Juris Secundom "Constitution" Sec. 24; (Cites ommited)
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
Are you arguing that Congress does not intend to lay and collect an indirect tax, the measure of which is the individual United States citizens's income?
Refer to: 26 U.S.C. s 7701(c) (Supp. V 1993), which states that "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title [i.e. Title 26] shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."
Albers v. Internal Revenue Service,
No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued they were non-resident aliens because Nebraska is
not part of the United States
"The Schroeders also argue that Nebraska is not a State as that term is defined by 26 U.S.C. ss 3121(e)(1) and (2), 4612(a)(4)(A), and 7701(a)(9) and (10) (Supp. V 1993). The Schroeders in citing these statutes in support of their position, fail to note that these sections define the stated term (for example, "State" and "United States" in s 3121(e)(1) & (2), "United States" in s 4612(a)(4)(A), and "United States" and "State" in s 7701(a)(9) & (10)) to be more inclusive than might otherwise be commonly understood. This result is easily reached by reading each of these sections in conjunction with the definition of "includes" and "including" contained in 26 U.S.C. s 7701(c) (Supp. V 1993), which states that "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title [i.e. Title 26] shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." Thus, the definition of "State" clearly includes what would be its commonly understood meaning--one of the fifty states forming a part of the entire United States. So, too, with "United States," the Union and sovereign entity produced through the association of all of the states. The Schroeders attempt, unsuccessfully, to remove from the language of the statutes its commonly understood meaning and usage.
United States v. Sato, 704 F.
Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the
District of Columbia and other federal areas,
"Defendants argue that Clause 17[Constitution Article 1 Section 8] limits the legislative power of Congress such that the only geographical areas over which Congress may legislate, or may exercise its power of taxation, are those areas described in Clause 17. This position is contrary to both the natural reading of the Constitution and the case law. Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. "[T]he word 'exclusive' was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states." District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953). See also Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 263, 83 S.Ct. 426, 437, 9 L.Ed.2d 292 (1963); Black Hills Power and Light Co. v. Weinberger, 808 F.2d 665, 668 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 73, 98 L.Ed.2d 36 (1987). Similarly, it is clear that the power of the Congress to collect taxes, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, [FN2] is an independent power which is not limited by the other specific powers enumerated in Section 8. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65-66, 56 S.Ct. 312, 319, 80 L.Ed. 477 (1936). It is thus readily apparent that Congress' power to tax extends beyond the exclusive legislative districts contemplated by Clause 17. Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Clause 17 is denied.
Ya know, there is a small part of me that wishes something about these cases would be true, but they always seem to be packaged as truth when they can be traced to someone wanting to sell us something. As always: Follow the money.
To be honest I suspect there is a "big" part of us that want the siren song to be true. The nature of any good confidence game is that it feeds on what we desire, not what we can have.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991) cert.den 502 US 1060
"Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protester movement’s illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, ... because he acted upon [that claim he] now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he had been burned."
Are you arguing that Congress does not intend to lay and collect an indirect tax, the measure of which is the individual United States citizens's income?
I don't think you'll find any tax protestors willing to honestly answer that question.
I don't think you'll find any tax protestors willing to honestly answer that question.
So the courts notice as well, not that it make any difference to the outcome.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991) cert.den 502 US 1060
The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
Just because you have given up there are millions who will "never give up" until the truth comes out.With your thinking "the British would still own America".Once a slave always a slave.Your post reflect a man who is beaten so go ahead and be a sheep with the sheeple and preach your silly NRST and bury citizens in a mountain of debt that "you"cannot control because you can't make a deal with the devil.How long will it be before you will learn this lesson?
How long will it be before you will learn this lesson?
You mean taxtruth's message direct form John Kotmair's S.A.P. organization
The Taxtruth message that must be disclaimed right out of the shoot?
"I AM NOT A LAWYER, CPA OR ENROLLED AGENT LICENSED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE IRS." "I DO NOT GIVE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE, SO PLEASE DON'T ASK FOR ANY. ANY QUESTIONS? CLICK HERE
"TaxTruth4u never, EVER!, offers advice of any kind - tax, legal, financial, or otherwise - or even so much as suggests the undertaking of any particular course of action.
In other words, it is sole responsibility - not ours or anyone else's - to understand the Law for yourself, to understand your own obligations and responsibilities under the Law, and to decide upon any course of action you may or may not wish to embark upon as a result of that newly gained understanding.
Therefore please take notice:
* If you understand the Law to say it requires you to file returns and pay income and employment tax, you should do so.
* If, on the other hand, you have concluded that the Law does NOT apply to you in your current situation and circumstances and you decide to stop filing (and paying) , you should be prepared for the consequences - i.e., you could lose everything you own and become a guest at "Club Fed"."
Because:
40.01 GENERALLY
Tax protestors have developed numerous schemes to evade their income taxes and frustrate the Internal Revenue Service under the guise of constitutional and other objections to the tax laws.***
"SECTION 6673. SANCTIONS AND COSTS AWARDED BY COURTS
(a) TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS(1) PROCEDURES INSTITUTED PRIMARILY FOR DELAY, ETC.
Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that--(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless , or
(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies,the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000."
26 USC 7206(2) 26 makes it a felony to:
Willfully aid[] or assist[] in . . . the preparation or presentation under . . . the internal revenue laws . . . of a return . . . which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return . . . .
This statute is known as the Internal Revenue Code's aiding and abetting provision, and applies not only to tax return preparers but to anyone who causes a false return to be filed. United States v. Sassak, 881 F.2d 276, 277-78 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Hooks, 848 F.2d 785, 789 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Williams, 644 F.2d 696, 701 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 841 (1981).
[skipping some]
For example, in United States v. Causey, 835 F.2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction of the defendant for causing 18 individuals to file false tax returns claiming refunds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2. The defendant argued that the government failed to establish that the persons actually submitting the false claims knew they were false. The Ninth Circuit distinguished the two subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and found that under subsection 2(b) a person "may be guilty of causing a false claim to be presented to the United States even though he or she uses an innocent intermediary to actually pass on the claim to the United States." 835 F.2d at 1292.
The court then held that in a section 2 prosecution for violation of section 287, the government does not need to allege or prove that the person actually submitting the claims knew them to be false. Id.
Tax protestors who cause third parties to prepare and file false returns may be charged under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). See United States v. Holecek, 739 F.2d 331 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 (1985) (return preparation); United States v. Kellogg, 955 F.2d 1244, 1249 (9th Cir. 1992) (defendant assisted in preparation of returns filed by others); United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 240 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985) (preparation and mailing of false Forms W-4); United States v. Erickson, 676 F.2d 408 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 853 (1982).
Providing advice and material to taxpayers, who in turn file false returns, is sufficient to sustain a section 7206(2) conviction. See United States v. Kelley, 769 F.2d 215 (4th Cir. 1985). In Kelley, the defendant argued that he could not be lawfully convicted of violating section 7206(2) because "he . . . did not actually participate in the preparation of any of the forms [Forms W-4] but only gave advice that his listeners were free to accept or reject." Kelley, 769 F.2d at 217. Rejecting this argument, the court said:
The contention ignores reality, for he did participate in the preparation of the forms. He told the listeners what to do and how to prepare the forms. He did so with the intention that his advice be accepted, and the fact that the members paid him for the advice and promised assistance warranted an inference of an expectation that the advice would be followed. Moreover, he actually supplied forms and materials to be filed with W-4 forms. He did not take his pen in his hand to complete the forms, but his participation in their preparation was as real as if he had.
For which sage and worthy advice you may purchase at bargain rate prices:
" JUST THE FACTS (12 HOUR VIDEO SERIES ON INCOME TAX LAW AND RELATED ISSUES) $230.00. (or $199.95 in *certified funds)"
" JUST THE FACTS (12 HOUR AUDIO VERSION) $80.00. (or $64.95 in *certified funds)"
" JUST THE FACTS (12 HOUR VIDEO SERIES ON INCOME TAX LAW AND RELATED ISSUES) $230.00. (or $199.95 in *certified funds)"
" JUST THE FACTS (12 HOUR AUDIO VERSION) $80.00. (or $64.95 in *certified funds)"
So that you to can become one of many SAPs:
A few of SAP's so-called victories in the Court (JUST THE FACTS) of course!:
- "Save-a-Patriot" (John B. Kotmair) In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94);
- ("we have come to understand that ‘patriot’ may be a buzz-word for ‘tax protester’.")Kotmair v. CIR (6/19/86) 86 TC 1253;
- (awareness by perp that founder Kotmair had been convicted of tax evasion serves to negate good faith defense) US v. Crosson (ED Penn unpub 12/20/95);
- ("Save-a-Patriot" organization cited for contempt of court for its interference with a bankruptcy court proceeding) In re Weatherley (ED Penn unpub 7/15/93);
- (organization forbidden to accept money for its amateur advice to a litigant in bankruptcy court) In re Weatherley (Bankr. ED Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427;
- (in perhaps its only court victory, the organization described itself as a church, and claimed to possess a vial of holy oil from the Temple in Jerusalem, to perform weddings, (allegedly) subsidize incarcerated members who have "resisted and delayed the tyrants at every step through the criminal investigation and all other agency and court proceedings", sell tax-dodge publications as holy scriptures, and (generously) support Kotmair as their cleric, etc. Save-a-Patriot Fellowship v. US (D Md 1996) 962 F.Supp 695;
- Kotmair refused to give testimony voluntarily for one of his followers who was prosecuted for multiple tax evasion. US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99);
Yep, "SAP" is certainly an excellent acronym for anyone associated with Mr. Kotmair and his organization. Note the court decision Mr. Kotmair got paid on(Managed to call themselves a tax exempt "church", or was it by chance an unrelated factor of IRS misbehaviour?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??
CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
The S.A.P. lesson didn't seem to help John Kotmair's son so very much now did it?
Do we need mention that said person's family is being take care of very well while on his Fed expense paid vacation by the Members of SAP who chuck in $10 bucks a month plus other miscellaneous little charges imposed on them through his "insurance plan" to help him in his hour of need?
Just which devil are people being taken buy "Taxtruth"?
Just because you have given up there are millions who will "never give up" until the truth comes out.
The truth is already out if you haven't guessed:
That is why it is time to end the income tax and abolish the IRS. not maintain the status quo which you appear to be defending.
The following are links to house bills currently in process to do that job, the first is an amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment and explicitly prohibit the income tax, with a bills enact a National Retail Sales Tax in the place of "Income Tax" and abolishing the IRS.
Support the effort, educate people on the issue, pound on your Congress critters door until his ears ring. If they he's not a cosigner and supporter on the amendment proposal and HR2525, find out why he wants to continue to infringe on your financial privacy, and 4th & 5th amendment rights:
H.J.RES.45
SPONSOR: Rep Johnson, Sam (introduced 04/14/99)
A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/14/99)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
We will see what happens in the supreme court with the Brown case.
We will see what happens in the supreme court with the Brown case.
Which case may that be? there are many "Brown" tax cases in the U.S.
This one by chance?
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Burleigh County Tax Equalization, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Carl Brown, Defendant and AppellantCivil No. 930296
Appeal from the County Court for Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Carl Brown, pro se, for defendant and appellant.
Richard James Riha, Assistant State's Attorney, 514 East Thayer, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for plaintiff and appellee.
Burleigh County v. Brown
Civil No. 930296
Per Curiam.
Carl Brown appeals from a county court order denying his motion for a new trial following a summary judgment in favor of Burleigh County Tax Equalization. Burleigh County sued Brown to collect unpaid mobile home taxes plus interest. Brown claims the mobile home tax is illegal, and the county's notices demanding payment of the mobile home tax are invalid because they are captioned as being for real estate taxes.
The judgment and order of the county court are affirmed under Rule 35.1(a)(1) and (6), N.D.R.App.P.
Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Dale V. Sandstrom
Herbert L. Meschke
Beryl J. Levine
William A. Neumann
Or this one?
Should Providence tax Brown's property?
Brown owns some of the most valuable land in the city, but does not pay any taxes on it.
By Ilana Rosman
Herald Staff Writer
Or may be this one?
From the Cincinnati Business Courier
April 29, 1997
Brown family wins tax battle
The Brown family of Cincinnati, owners of the Cincinnati Bengals, won't have to pay $40 million in back taxes that the IRS was seeking. A U.S. Tax Court in Chicago has ruled in favor of the Brown family, which means it does not have to pay taxes and penalties to the IRS. The tax agency had alleged the Browns tried to evade estate taxes following the death of Bengals founder Paul Brown and the subsequent transfer of ownership interests in the team.
We will see what happens in the supreme court with the Brown case.
Took a look for tax cases to come before the S.C.: [ http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/caseindex.html ]. No Brown case I'm afraid.
Tell me has your Brown case appeal been filed? Does it have an U.S. Circuit appellate judgement, which district? I would like look it up. There doesn't seem to be a "Brown" tax case among the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal in the last four years that I can find.
Please provide a link to the court documents surrounding this case you speak of. That we all can see the potential of the mysterious "Brown" case to be argued before the Supreme Court.
Anything like the Beresford case by chance??
http://www.beresford-v-irs.com/sitemap.html
STEVEN M. BERESFORD, Ph.D. Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Defendant.OPINION & ORDER Filed 14 JULY 2000
***
- "Beresford's primary contention, however, that the federal income tax is based on voluntary compliance, has been held to be "completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448(10 Cir 1990); Wilcox v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008(9th Cir 1988).
- Because Beresfords action lacks any merit, it provides no basis for an injunction. Moreover, the Anti-Injunction Act state: "no suit for the purpose of restraing the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any persn, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed" 26 U.S.C. 7421(a). The Supreme Court has carved out an exception to the prohibition. If it is clear that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail, an injunction may issue if equity jurisdiction otherwise exists. Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1,7(1962.) That is not the case here.
In summary, this action fails to state a claim on which relief may be based.
CONCLUSION
The United States' motion to dismiss(#12) is granted. Plaintiff's motion for change of venue(#24) is denied. Plaintiffs motion for default judgement(#27) is denied. This action is dismissed with prejudice,
IT IS SO ORDERD.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2000.
GARR M. KING
United States District Court Judge."
I look forward to the results of his appeal as well, maybe they'll throw out the Income Tax Statutes as ambiguous and patently unfair. Then we can all breath easier as Congress looks for a new way to lay and collect tax, like an indirect excise tax known as the National Retail Sales Tax, under HR2525. Then I can go back to the lake over the hill and do some more fishing.
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/14/99)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
We will see what happens in the supreme court with the Brown case.
Wait a minute, according to Thornton's N.I.T.E/taxgate, and your SAPs, these things are all supposed to stay administrative and not ever have to be fought out in Courts and stuff.
Gee! sump'n go wrong?
Somebody's theory seems to be slipping on the slopes of reality or there would be no "Supreme Court" Brown case to be looking for.
Please stop equating the NITE position with those of every other existing tax protestor movement. NITE does not protest the income tax code. You saw the "full page ad" in the USA Today - Did you see NITE mentioned anywhere? No, you did not. Those people hate NITE and Thurston Bell because of the very real "threat" he presents to their scams.
The mission of NITE is to restore accountability in our government agencies and restore the principals of self-governance. If the people don’t hold the government accountable to the rule of law, who will?
The material at NITE is posted on the Internet for all to see for FREE. There is no charge to view the information. No books with off-point arguments for sale. No bait and switch, etc.
NITE has posted its results and successes on its site; no other organization has done that because they cannot. These tax protestor organizations, which you so rightly tear apart, have had ZERO success because, as you so correctly point out, their arguments are silly and lack statutory merit.
The court cases you’ve posted are not applicable to the NITE position because those cases decided arguments that had as their basis something other than the NITE position. The NITE position is not based on constitutional, moral or religious objections. The ratification of the 16th amendment is not at issue. The 5th Amendment is not at issue. The filing requirement is not at issue.
The NITE position has never been argued in court. If you would ever take the time to understand its argument you will clearly see why.
Apples and oranges again, Geez.
The IRS has had three years to refute the NITE position and hasn't been able to do it. If what you claim is correct, how do you explain this? Do us all a favor, me included, and apply your exceptional analytical skills to doing that which the IRS has failed to do.
While you’re at it, here are a couple more questions:
Who or what determines whether taxable income was paid?
What initial evidence does the IRS rely on when imposing an individual's income tax liability?
Please stop equating the NITE position with those of every other existing tax protestor movement.
Oh really? N.I.T.E.(Thurston Bell) and (Thurston Bell)Taxgate are different persons persuing different agenda's ?
I think not! From taxgate:
"An increasing number of your neighbors are lawfully & legally bringing home 100% of their hard earned pay to keep."
Sure sounds like the siren song of pay no taxes to me. As do your repeated attempts to explain how the American citizen is not subject to pay the income tax in spite of clear rebuttals to the contrary. Those rebuttals consistent with Supreme Court decisions from the very beginning of the nation under the Constitution for the United States of America.
Thurston Bell & N.I.T.E seem to certainly wish to retain credit for the work done in the taxgate site:
"July 21, 2000
We have received several e-mails to date regarding the similarities of both web sites.
Thurston P. Bell, the original author, researcher, and co-founder of Taxgate.com, severed his association with his former Partner/Webmaster as of January 28, 2000. Since the agreed function and original purpose of Taxgate had been blurred by the Webmaster, Mr. Rick Bryan Haraka, many new Members did not know that the vast majority of material, data, and all of the strategies developed and posted at Taxgate.com were originally developed by Thurston. Taxgate, Haraka's Web Site, was merely supposed to be a billboard for the information developed by Thurston under the National Institute for Taxation Education (NITE).
Please note: We have repeatedly asked Mr. Rick Bryan Haraka, Webmaster & Owner of the URL "Taxgate.com", et al, to either remove Mr. Bell's articles & research so The People will not be confused, OR, give credit where credit is due. To date, he has done neither.
And according to others in the Tax protest movement that repeatedly show up on these thread all argue to keep the the income tax statutes in place, interestingly enough. All claim the tax code is their friend too. And seems as all of them have there own guru, or site to turn to, each differing in approach perhaps but each with the same underlying message.To paraphrase: "If you do it my way, you don't have worry about paying income taxes. As they don't really apply to you."
I fail to see your distinctions between you own objectives and any other T.P. organization or individual.
Yes administrative procedure does indeed work to the end of resolving real tax issues, any tax lawyer is well aware of that, as should every citizen be.
Those administrative procedures do not however remove the liability that every American citizen is subject to in regard to taxes, as Congress clearly has "the power to lay and collect taxes, ...." and those taxes operate on the individual American citizen through the rule of uniformity.
And no matter what Congress really does intend to extract every penny it can get away with from the American citizen. And the courts back that up as:
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."
The factor that every tax protest organization and individual T.P.r refuse to take into account and recognise as the starting point of all application and interpretation of statute. It is the pole star and guiding principal to give effect to the legislative purpose of statutes within the boundries of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
The NITE position has never been argued in court.
You have repeatedly argued that most American citizen's are not liable under the income tax.
The courts have clearly stated otherwise, the Congress clearly intends otherwise, the Constitution clealy supports the power of Congress to lay and collect such taxes.
Sorry, the minute you state that an American engaged in activites for which they receive a compensation from another is not subject to the power of Congress to lay and collect a tax on those activities measured by the amount of compensation received; you have placed your self in the same camp as anyother tax protester, regardless of your methods or dodges.
Anyone may lawfully avoid a tax not layed upon him; They may not however, evade a tax lawfully(by virtue of the power of Congress to lay and collect) owed.
The IRS has had three years to refute the NITE position and hasn't been able to do it.
Your stated position has been, most Americans are not subject to the income tax statutes. A position that has repeatedly been refuted and hardly requires additional refutation by the IRS.
The Nite position appears to be, responsibility to pay income tax may be evaded through the use of IRS error in following administrative procedures against the IRS.
Probably true until, the IRS decides it really wants to collect revenue rather than establish legal jeopardy over individuals; or the Congress repeals the income tax code as being no longer able to achieve the political purpose of the income tax, which is to maintain a legal liability over every citizen for purposes of control rather than the mere collection of revenue.
Congress does not need the individual income tax to collect revenue; Government needs and uses the income tax as a lever of control over the people. Not paying taxes only increases the ability of the government to establish a legal liability with which to exert control over the citizen.
Who or what determines whether taxable income was paid?
Congess through excising the power to "lay and collect taxes".
Since the income tax is an excise layed on commercial/financial activities beween persons, the amount of tax paid is calculated on the basis of compensation/gain received as consequence of the activity. Taxable income is gross benefit received from taxed activities(sources) less deductions, exceptions, exemptions, credits, allowences, etc. allowed by Congress in the exercise of its power to lay and collect taxes.
What initial evidence does the IRS rely on when imposing an individual's income tax liability?
The lack of receiving a tax return, that is when the statute of limitations clock starts running and does not stop until a return is received. That lack of a return establishes the legal cause necessary to investigate/audit/prosecute or harass according to view from which end of the gun you are sitting.
Oops! excising = exercising
Though there is some justification in using the term "excising" :o)
. NITE does not protest the income tax code.
It certainly should.
We should remember philosophical underwriting of the Income Tax, which can be found here: Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848. Among their recommendations are these:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
The income tax is implemented in this nation for reasons far removed from the Constitutional intent of collecting revenue for express purpose:
Constitution, Article I Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
"In questions of power, let NO MORE be heard of confidence in MEN, but bind them down from mischief WITH THE CHAINS OF THE CONSTITUTION."
Jefferson
The Original Intent of the "Income Tax"
"TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE
-by Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York & advisor to FDR on taxation.
January 1946 issue of "American Affairs"
"The superior position of public government over private business is nowhere more clearly evident than in government's power to tax business. Business gets its many rule-making powers from public government. Public government sets the limits to the exercise of these rule-making powers of business, and protects the freedom of business operations within this area of authority. Taxation is one of the limitations placed by government on the power of business to do what it pleases.
There is nothing reprehensible about this procedure. The business that is taxed is not a creature of flesh and blood, it is not a citizen. It has no voice in how it shall be governed --- nor should it. The issues in the taxation of business are not moral issues, but are questions of practical effect: What will get the best results? How should business be taxed so that business will make its greatest contribution to the common good?"
"What Taxes Are Really For
Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.
In the recent past, we have used our federal tax program consciously for each of these purposes. In serving these purposes, the tax program is a means to an end. The purposes themselves are matters of basic national policy which should be established, in the first instance, independently of any national tax program.
Among the policy questions with which we have to deal are these:
Do we want a dollar with reasonably stable purchasing power over the years?
Do we want greater equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone?
Do we want to subsidize certain industries and certain economic groups?
Do we want the beneficiaries of certain federal activities to be aware of what they cost?
These questions are not tax questions; they are questions as to the kind of country we want and the kind of life we want to lead. The tax program should be a means to an agreed end. The tax program should be devised as an instrument, and it should be judged by how well it serves its purpose.
And you all thought that income taxes were to collect revenue and balance budgets didn't you?
And you all thought that income taxes were to collect revenue and balance budgets didn't you?
Not me. I posted the Ruml speech on August 9 of this year. I know what the income tax is for, and that's why I don't understand why you want to replace one system for another that will, eventually, be tailored to serve the same purposes. Or do you suppose the Economic Stabilization Program, the Federal Reserve and our nation's present monetary system will just go away when your NRST becomes law?
Oh, by the way you went 0 for 2 on my last questions.
Who or what determines whether taxable income was paid?
The Congress does not determine taxable income. The IRS doesn't even do it. Like it or not, according to the statutes, it is the EMPLOYER or PAYOR that makes that determination. If you don’t want to accept this fact I will provide the statute.
What initial evidence does the IRS rely on when imposing an individual's income tax liability?
The evidence the IRS relies on to make an assessment is the W-2, 1099 or similar form. As I mentioned above, it is the legal responsibility of the employer/payor to know whether or not it pays taxable income. Funny thing is, most employers/payors ASSUME they pay ‘gross income’ when in fact they do not. Employers rely on the “advice” published in the “law in plain English” pamphlets they receive in the mail. These pamphlets are in no way consistent with the statutes and regulations. But GREAT THINGS HAPPEN when employers wake up to the facts, educate themselves and then act on that knowledge.
Thought I'd share some quotes. You'll appreciate at least one of them:
"If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you".
- Gary Makovski, Special IRS Agent, testifying under oath in US. v. Lloyd
===
"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply...".
-Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, testifying before a House Ways and Means subcommittee in 1953
===
"Eight decades of amendments... to [the] code have produced a virtually impenetrable maze... The rules are unintelligible to most citizens... The rules are equally mysterious to many government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law".
- Shirley Peterson, Former IRS Commissioner, April 14, 1993 at Southern Methodist University
===
"I don't like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of 'from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs'. That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him".
-T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, May 25, 1956 in US. News & World Report
===
"I have sat on many a promotion panel where the first question of panel members was 'How many seizures have you made?"'.
-Joseph R. Smith, eighteen-year IRS agent, testifying before Congress
===
and just for fun,
'All we have to do now is to inform the public that the payment of social security taxes is voluntary and watch the mass exodus".
-Walter E. Williams, John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, January 24, 1996.
More to follow...
Oh, by the way you went 0 for 2 on my last questions.
By what unbiased judge, yourself LOL! I'll leave the scoring to the lurkers out there and their investigations from the case law, that's why I provide the links I do.
Who or what determines whether taxable income was paid?
The Congress does not determine taxable income.
Sorry but Congress enacts the statute from which such things established. Without that, all else is mute. The Court ultimately establishes the fact resolved through law. And seeing the word "income" is a constitutional term, the Court has established the definition to be the common and popular meaning thereof. That is why statute does not attempt to define "income" explicitly, the common or popular meaning of the term is the guiding definition.
"Unless an intention to the contary is indicated, words used in a constitution will generally be interpreted in there natural or popular, as distinguished from a technical meaning."
16 Corpus Juris Secundom "Constitution" Sec. 24; (Cites ommited)
Your statute indicating that an employer or payor make that determination is true in the sense that a payment does indeed take place from payor to payee, however even formal documentation of a transaction, the tax is still due and when discovered by whatever route whether by virtue of a employer report(1099), witholding(W2), the report of an informer(e.g. ex-girl friend, spouse, etc.), or circumstantial evidences of bank deposits, investments, or purchase; such may be established for purposes of pressing payment and invoking the penal statutes where necessary.
What initial evidence does the IRS rely on when imposing an individual's income tax liability?
The evidence the IRS relies on to make an assessment is the W-2, 1099 or similar form. As I mentioned above, it is the legal responsibility of the employer/payor to know whether or not it pays taxable income.
Sorry again but in terms of statute and case law, the one who receives payment is required to report gross incomes when the of the minimums required for filing returns is met on the due date of said return, for most in April. It is the receiver who pays the tax, witholding and estimated tax is not the tax for which one is liable nor are they in reality mandatory for anyone, they are merely prepayment towards the ultimate liability for the tax period. In the end the tax liability and requirement to file the income tax return always falls upon the individual receiving compensation regardless of whether or not there was a formally documented compensation. Gross income may be had without the 1099 or W2 and yet is still be subject for the calculation of taxes wherever a business/financial activity results in payment from one to another. It is the activity that is taxable, not the income per-se.
Remember the intent of the law maker is the factor that establishes the construction of statue.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."
And that intent is very well stated both in law and in the halls of Congress:
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
It is the business/financial activity that occurs that creates the tax liability. The amount of tax due is merely a portion of the compensation passed from one to another as consequence of that activity.
Your littany of opinions of persons whether under oath or not is interesting but have no bearing on the conduct of a trial nor the decisions of the Courts. I notice that you offer no Court Decisions, just endless opinions of little legal import.
You really should start taking Thurston Bell's advice:
"The litmus test of any argument is: Can it be substantiated in court so that it can be argued?"
Without that litmus test, you have nothing but hot air and unfounded opinion. That which is substantiated in Court may survive to serve as a defense position, without that substantiation you are building sand castles and dream stuff.
Provide your Court based substantiation; nothing else is acceptable. It is the Courta, not any of the worthy persons you have quoted, that make the final judgement and determinations of a case at law.
Or do you suppose the Economic Stabilization Program, the Federal Reserve and our nation's present monetary system will just go away when your NRST becomes law?
Neither of them are the tax law are they? Under a Fractional Reserve System the Fed will continue do its thing. The method of taxation is irrelavent to those issues, just some taxes(e.g. income tax) make for better political control over the population than others. I will continue to go for the others myself.
I intend to see the end of the income tax for its political abuses, the intrusions it provides for government to probe into the finances of the citizen and the legal jeopardy it maintains over the individual. That is why I intend to see the end of it. That is not an arguable point it is an apriori axiom from my viewpoint.
I tire of your endless attempt to argue an issue that for me at least is clear. The income tax must come to an end. That is priority one, I am not interested in why you may wish to retain it. So far you have given no indication of why you prefer it other than you perceive that you are able to evade payment of tax under it.
I won't argue with that point, for it is clear the income tax can be evaded, how others may justify that evasion to themselves is their own concern not mine.
I will however point out once again, that regardless of whether or not one pays that tax, whether or not one believes that tax to be legal or illegal is irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is, the income tax is used by government to establish a legal jeopardy over each and every individual of the land, rich, poor, honest, crook or whatever; that legal jeopardy exists and will continue to exist as long as the income tax statute is not repealed. It is that imminent legal jeopardy I intend to remove.
You may do whatever you will, your desire to maintain the income tax is pathetic in my eyes and is not an issue that is open to debate as far as I am concerned.
The income tax must come to an end.
We agree on this! I want the income tax gone for all of the same reasons you have so eloquently listed!
I'll make you a deal: No matter to what degree we continue this debate, if at all, let us agree on one point - ultimately we both want to see the income tax done away with and we are both working to that end. Let us agree that we share the common goal of ultimately doing away with the damn thing!
…your desire to maintain the income tax is pathetic in my eyes…
The only reason I want to maintain it is because it can be beaten. I want the income tax around just long enough for enough people to come to the realization that they can get out of it. Call it "critical mass". The people can force effective change, but it has to happen one employee and one employer at a time.
I don't know what you think of Jim Traficant (though as always I would value your opinion). I personally have my reservations about the man, but he is not a fan of the income tax either. He is well aware of the sickness that is the IRS, its true purpose, the heinous abuses of the Rule of Law, etc. I mention him because he made a very interesting statement in April 1999 (I have it on video) where he said something to the effect that "… we can fix this problem, but it has to happen at the individual level…". By the time I heard this I had already come to that conclusion, and his statement reaffirmed my view. Interestingly, Traficant participated significantly in getting TBR I passed into law. The Congress has given the people the tools to beat back the red devil IRS Gestapo, but we have to use those tools, and in my opinion, when enough people use them, then will we can force real reform.
Modern day Amerikan Socialists have a saying: "We agree to disagree." I hate that saying, but since we have been discussing the Marxist-inspired income tax, it seems appropriate. Our goal is the same, but our paths are different.
I have a sneaky feeling that, one way or another, one day our paths will join in this fight. And I look forward to that day.
Thornton, one factor that if you have monitored my replies here on FR concerning the topic of paying the income tax, should have stoodout for you.
I personally believe people should do that which they are comfortable with in bringing an end to the income tax. That being said, I am against snookering or coercing people into a stance that can place them in real jeopardy while they are led to believe otherwise.
You can go to jail, destroy marriages and generally mess up your life messing around with this stuff. If one is not going to not pay taxes one must know and be willing to accept the risks and price attendant with such a stance. Telling people that the income tax is not a legal libility to them is totally counter to the intent of Congress, the opinions of the Courts and does those persons no service whatsoever except to ensure failure and total for lack of preparedness for an eventual court battle or adverse judgement.
I object to creating gun fodder through coercion, false premises and promise of something for nothing, and that is what the T.P. movement as a whole does. The worst of it is that many in that movment are more interested in creating a financial/political kingdom for themselves at the expense of their followers and the truth than any desire to actually rid this nation of the income tax system used in this nation. Thurston Bell has made his position very well known on the score, as well as his opposition to the NRST or any tax system that would actually have a chance of removing the income tax from the statutes of this nation.
If one wishes to not pay the "individual" income tax with no risk, it is quite easy really. Don't work for pay or aquire gain sufficient to trigger the income tax. But I find most folks are not willing to accept the material sacrifice attendant with that stance. Most want their cake and eat it too; as a consequence they risk the loss of it all and make nice gun fodder.
Myself I will protest income taxes in my own manner, and work unceasingly for the repeal and prohibition of the use of the income tax.
The pathetic part is the fact that the "individual" income tax has purposes that are unrelated to mere revenue collection, and those purpose establish and maintain legal jeopardy, and political control over the citizenry. Direct violation of the statutes only serve to feed those purposes. Thurston Bell and others within the T.P. movement do not address these issues, and in fact, by their very actions extend the reach of those purposes.
Remember the next step is into anarchy, and from anarchy grows tyranny. The essential feature of anarchy is the undermining and disrepect of the rule of law, that is the factor encouraged by the T.P movement and from the opening argument of the main article of this thread as regards the Subchapter "N" misrepresentations to justify the N.I.T.E. approach, it is clear as a "Bell" that Thurston Bell stands square in the middle of the rest of the T.P. movement.
To quote N.I.T.E.:
" U.S. Citizens are not subject to the income tax in regards to earnings from U.S. sources."
From the viewpoint of the Courts, and the intent of Congress, that construction of the income tax statutes enacted by Congress is a misleading and false statement based on selective and partial analysis of the the statutes that I will not abide by. It presumes a protection and defense in law that does not exist, and thus misleads those who are attracted to N.I.T.E. into a coerced and unwarranted position that will lead them directly into maximum jeopardy with no protection other than hope for error or slovenly training on the part of DOJ prosecutors and IRS investigators. A very poor thread on which to hang one's hat.
For contrary to your implications no Court case has ever been won on a basis of the Subchapter "N" argument nor have the Courts ever sustained that the American Citizen in the United States deriving income from activites within the United States is not liable to the income tax. In fact the Courts have consistently maintained otherwise throughout the history of taxation in this nation.
LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)
"It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception, and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.'COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
"[T]he principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen.
Thus Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).:
"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States."
U.S. v. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)
" The United States has the power to levy excises upon occupations, and to classify them for this purpose; and need look only to the fact of the exercise of the occupation or calling taxed, regardless of whether such exercise is permitted or prohibited by the laws of the United States or by those of a state. The burden of the tax may be imposed alike on the just and the unjust."
In light of these decisions, the statutes and regulations theselves and many other such Court opinions of the same tenor applying specifically to American citizens in and out of the United States, with sources(income producing activities) in and out of the United States, the Supreme Court has more than adequately addressed the issues of T.P. cottage industry representations of the Subchapter "N" assertions.
I have a sneaky feeling that, one way or another, one day our paths will join in this fight. And I look forward to that day.
Possibly, but not on the Thurston Bell side of the issues.
To quote N.I.T.E:
"We Love The Income Tax!
August 18, 2000
At present time, there is great resentment and disfavor regarding the current tax system. This is not only fueled by the media, but also by some members of Congress.We hope to change that.
This wave of dissatisfaction is being created not necessarily because the people are dissatisfied with the tax laws, but because the media and the politicians have decided that this is an issue that they want to talk about at this time. This is a fact, as the Congress has been fielding very serious complaints against the IRS for at least twenty years, and has done nothing to curb the source of the complaints."
This and the expressed opposition to the NRST in favor of the income tax by Thurston Bell places him and his organization diametrically opposed to my own beliefs and understandings of the direction to go, it gives no hint of an achievable means to end the income tax and infact supports the current tax code with full fervor.
I am sorry, but I do not buy your intimations that Thurston Bell may be in this fight to rid the nation of the income tax. He expresses quit the contrary view with no look to the political ramifications of the the income tax and and imposition of imminent jeopardy the income tax places all citizens under.
Again a direct quote from N.I.T.E:
"NITE does not like giving any indication of agreement with the NST. The fact is that there will be hue and cry for the abolition of the despised IRS, as the old guard and Charlatans continue to whip up new audiences and believers into a frenzy to bring about the abolition of the Income Tax and the IRS, and in the end the Income Tax will not go, and the IRS personnel will just place their resumes on file with the Office of Personnel and Management who will rehire them for the new Alphabet Soup Agency."
Sorry but HR2525 is anything but a contination of the IRS, the Income tax, or anything near the nature of Thurston Bell's demagoguery against it.
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/14/99)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
HR2525 coupled with a proposed constitutional amendment called for in the bill itself to literally and expressly prohibit the income tax through a House Joint Resolution proposing such an amendment :
H.J.RES.45
SPONSOR: Rep Johnson, Sam (introduced 04/14/99)
A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.
Will indeed end the income tax, and the IRS and any agency any way like it.
What Thurston Bell fears, is the same as every Tax Protestor fears, a severe reduction in the inability to evade taxes that an income tax provides. That is the pushing issue of Thurston Bell that rings true with all Tax Protestors, as opposed to "Income" Tax Protest.
In the final anaylsis, Thurston Bell is for Thurston Bell, and his agenda has nothing to do with the Constitution nor the limitation of government intrusion into the individual citizen's life. The more intrusion there is the better his demagoguery and sales pitch flies.
The material at NITE is posted on the Internet for all to see for FREE. There is no charge to view the information.
'Member':
Has access to the Members Hall for $165.00... renewable yearly for $75.
***
Each Member is entitled to a free 20 Minute Consultation with only one Senior Fellow of their Choice, or Thurston Bell if necessary.
Charter Member:
A Charter Member has the added recognition of a significant donation/contribution, above and beyond what is expected of a basic member.
***
A Certificate worthy of framing acknowledges this level of Membership.
Senior Fellow:
A Senior Fellow has joined the Institute at the ground level, but has demonstrated possession of special, unique qualities and abilities that are supportive of the Research and Educational Staff of the Institute. This is either a an honor earned, and granted, to few after careful consideration, and as of January 2000 is a leadership position available to such Members, Lawyers, CPA's, and Accountants, for a fee of $3500 to cover their direct training to carry on in the work that has been developed for NITE members by Thurston Bell, as an individual and the Executive Researcher.
***
Senior Fellows are allowed to set their own fee Schedule pursuant to the value of their time, as well as the hours of their availability Some cases handled by a Senior Fellow of higher complexity and requiring Thurston's personal involvement may be (at Thurston's discretion) subject to a $125 per hour Executive Consultation Charge that will be added to the Case work fee.
No books with off-point arguments for sale. No bait and switch, etc.
Seminar I, includes syllabus, flow charts, gross income argument.
Cost: $55.00
You can pay by check using our Secure Server or fax your check or credit card payment HERE.
Seminar II, includes syllabus, 2 of Thurston's responses, one to the Franchise Tax Board and the other to the IRS.
Cost: $80.00.
You can pay by check using our Secure Server or fax your check or credit card payment HERE.
Thurston Bell ha$ hi$ agenda$, I have mine.
We already have ANARCHY in America unless you haven't noticed.
Take a look in the old Soviet Union, that friend is anarchy. We are just setting the groundwork here.
Sorry to see you so BRAINWASHED!The NRST is not the way out for Americans,only the truth will help us.No matter what court cases you site will not change the truth of written law.You and the IRS have no answers for section 861.period! You always fail to read your own post.I do get a good laugh at your post though because I know you are upset with the current tax system and you think the NRST is the way out.You are caged in your belief.There are many ways to deal with this issue.It's sad to see you have only one bad way to deal with this.
You and the IRS have no answers for section 861.period!
The Courts already have your answer for you. I don't need to answer it I don't decide your fate, and I could care less about the IRS, they don't decide your fate either.
Show me an appellate or Supreme Court Decision with a link to the formal opinon clearly supporting your contention that American Citizens are not liable for taxes from income derived from business/financial activities in the United States of America. Then I'll look closer into your argument.
It's the Courts Dummy!, that have the say; not me, not the IRS.
It's the Courts that get to hit your pocketbook, and/or toss you in the jug.
And it is the Courts you must seek your answer from, and they, in their own unique way, are telling you that you are full of it and have been since the days of George Washington.
COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
"[T]he principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen.
Thus Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).:
"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States."
If you don't report income or pay taxes, that's fine by me. You can argue with the Court all you want.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991) cert.den 502 US 1060
The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
You and the IRS have no answers for section 861.period!
Seems the Courts do however:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??
CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
That vaccuous argument didn't seem to help John Kotmair's son so very much now did it.
There are many ways to deal with this issue.
Yep like over half the people of the United States don't pay the individual income tax quite legitimately. Course they don't have much income, too young, no job, etc. but they manage to do it, so can you. No Risk with O.J. Jury Roulette either.
Course that doesn't do a thing for the Federal income taxes, cost of tax compliance, and high interest rates buried in the price of all goods and services now does it. Those factors make up from 20-40% of the price of everything you pay for. Not only do you get to hold yourself in legal jeopardy, you still get to pay them income taxes too.
Yep you really manage to not pay taxes don't you, and on top of that you like get to hide from or argue with the IRS and the courts. A real fun life I would say.
Since the IRS doesn't decide the peoples fate and you say the courts decide peoples fate then you have no need to rid us of the IRS.It seems its a problem with the courts passing judgement on the people when there is no law that exist that they have broken.This is the real problem.
The Brown case which will be coming up shortly in the supreme court will settle this issue once and for all.
It seems its a problem with the courts passing judgement on the people when there is no law that exist that they have broken.This is the real problem.
I'll tell you what, you go convince the Courts of that as I am sure you will have just as much success as Kotmair and as these folks did NOT.
Your denial has no authority nor rationality behind it:
Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns is unclear.United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a"person" under the tax code.United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him, as "a sovereign citizen of the state of Nevada," to file income tax returns.Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, that there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of "income" is vague.Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority to impose a "direct" tax, that no law makes any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on "taxable income," and that "income" has no defined meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.
Constitution for the United States of America:
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
"the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
Therefore Congress operates on the basis:
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
Hence the findings of:
"the IRC, at 26 USC 1, , says clearly that a tax is "imposed on the taxable income of every individual", which pretty much negatives the notion that income tax is either voluntary or contractual or applicable only to certain special populations."
Along with implementing regulations 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
26 USC 5761.
CIVIL PENALTIES
(b) FAILURE TO PAY TAX
Whoever fails to pay any tax imposed by this chapter at the time prescribed by law or regulations, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided in this title, be liable to a penalty of 5 percent of the tax due but unpaid.
26 USC 7203.
WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE RETURN, SUPPLY INFORMATION, OR PAY TAX
Any person required under this title[26] to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "felony" for "misdemeanor" and "5 years" for "1 year".
The Brown case which will be coming up shortly in the supreme court will settle this issue once and for all.
You made such assertion before
We will see what happens in the supreme court with the Brown case.
You have yet to provide any "Brown" case so where's your link to the Supreme Court granting Certiori to this Brown case of yours "coming up shortly before the Supreme Court?"
Took a look for tax cases to come before the S.C.: [ http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/caseindex.html ]. No Brown case I'm afraid.
Tell me has your Brown case appeal been filed? Does it have an U.S. Circuit appellate judgement, which district? I would like look it up. There doesn't seem to be a "Brown" tax case among the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal in the last four years that I can find.
Provide a link to the court documents surrounding this case you speak of. That we all can see the potential of the mysterious "Brown" case to be argued before the Supreme Court.
The Brown case which will be coming up shortly in the supreme court will settle this issue once and for all.
ROTFLM(_|_)O
Are you telling me the courts are going to decide that businesses don't pass tax costs along to their customers?
Just what issue are you talking about. Where is this imaginary Brown Case that will end all taxation by the Federal Government?
It seems its a problem with the courts passing judgement on the people when there is no law that exist that they have broken.This is the real problem.
What you don't understand is, he needs your tax money, besides logic and facts cloud the minds of liberals.
Don't you, as I do, find it strange the very people claiming to want to rid us of the IRS are also going out of their way to defend it's existence?
These same people have no problem instituting a new sales "gross payment" tax, keeping the amendment that allows for the confiscation of your income intact, even going so far as to claim it's not necessary to repeal the 16th amendment once their new tax is in place. They then wait 5yrs after their tax is imposed to supposedly defund the IRS...very stange tactic indeed.
Obviously the Brown Case has already been shot down at the lower court level as the standard T.P. "Victory" is, or you would not be claiming a Supreme Court appeal will set things right.
Tell me, is this Brown "Victory" to be appealed, another one of those amazing Kotmair victory cases?
A few of SAP's so-called victories in the Court (JUST THE FACTS) of course!:
Or is it one of Conklin's magic wins.
"William T. Conklin claims to be successful in fighting the IRS, and has described himself as a "known tax protester like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington." Conklin v. United States, KTC 1994-259, Case No. 89-N-1514 (D. Col. 1994). Unfortunately, his claims of success are contradicted by the public record, because he has lost every case on record. See, e.g., Conklin v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 41 (1988); Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1992-318; Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-87.
Cases claimed as wins by William T. Conklin:
Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492
United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265
Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318
Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d 1032
Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027
Tavery v. United States, Civ. No. 87-Z-180, USDC Colorado "
Don't you, as I do, find it strange the very people claiming to want to rid us of the IRS are also going out of their way to defend it's existence?
Obviously you find it strange to uphold truth and facts at any time don't you lewislynn.
You are the one who continually maintains the status quo should be upheld. I intend to change the status quo to end the nightmare of imminent legal jeopardy that the income tax holds over every man, woman, and yes even child in this nation.
I find it strange that those who profess such disrespect of the statutes to suggest and foster their violation want to keep said statutes in place.
. They then wait 5yrs after their tax is imposed to supposedly defund the IRS...very stange tactic indeed.
Not strange at all lewislynn, they are given time to finish up current investigations of tax offenders and posecute the heck out of them.
No amnesty for you looey, they get to go after your pound of flesh. Even with a law you claim doesn't exist.
LOL, no rest for the wicked is their looey.
Theres more? BORING!!! Nothing is going to change it. Not your vote, not mine.
These same people have no problem instituting a new
sales"gross payment" tax, keeping the amendment that allows for the confiscation of your income intact,
Really now lewis just reading the bill tells anyone who can read otherwise and all they need do is look into past FR postings to find your statement to be totally false.
The following are links to house bills currently in process to do essentially that, the first is an amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment and to explicitly prohibit the income tax, the 2nd bill to enact a national sales tax in the place of "Income Tax" and abolish the IRS, and call for the aformentioned Amendment to repeal the 16th and prohibit the income tax.
H.J.RES.45
SPONSOR: Rep Johnson, Sam (introduced 04/14/99)
A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/14/99)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
The Linder/Peterson Bill (FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS)
even going so far as to claim it's not necessary to repeal the 16th amendment once their new tax is in place.
As I and others have stated repeatedly state, merely repealing or in some other manner voiding the 16th amendment will not end the income tax. It is necessary to both repeal the 16th and prohibit the income tax.
Why is it that you continue to insist on lies, especially when they are so easily refuted, just by looking in the bills themselves.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.2525:
Section 2(f)
- (f) FINDINGS RELATING TO REPEAL OF PRESENT FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM- Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed and that the repealing amendment should prohibit Federal taxation of incomes, wages, estates, and gifts.
TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES
SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.
- Subtitle A of title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income taxes and self-employment taxes) is repealed.
SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.
- (a) IN GENERAL- Subtitle C of title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to payroll taxes and withholding of income taxes) is repealed.
- (b) FUNDING OF SOCIAL SECURITY- For funding of the Social Security Trust Funds from general revenue, see section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401).
SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.
- Subtitle B of title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to estate and gift taxes) is repealed.
And a proposed amendment to Repeal the 16th and explicitly prohibit the income tax, in a form necessary for such proposal:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.J.RES.45:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax. (Introduced in the House)
HJ 45 IH
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 45
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 14, 1999
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. COX, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. PITTS, Mr. COOKSEY, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. CAMP, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. HERGER, Mr. LINDER, Mr. STUMP, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BONILLA, and Mr. SKEEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.
- Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --
- `SECTION 1. Three years after the ratification of this article of amendment, the sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, and the Congress shall have no power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, except in time of war declared by the Congress.'
- `SECTION 2. Not later than 180 days after the ratification of the article of amendment proposed by this joint resolution, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate recommendations for any legislation that may be necessary to implement that article.'.
But I am not surprised, all one need to do with virtually any statement of a T.P.r is track down the source caselaw and statutes and actually read it.
The real Lies are shown for what they are.
What you don't understand is, he needs your tax money, besides logic and facts cloud the minds of liberals.
ROTF ... I don't call the John Birch Society exactly liberals myself.
What can I do to make it happen? Vote for representatives like me who will not cave in to the special interests. Make sure the candidate you vote for is PRO NATIONAL SALES TAX!
It's time for another Tea Party in America!
Excuse me, not John Birch Society, Just John Birch Republican running for Congress.
BORING!!!
What's so boring? Are complete tax refunds with interest paid boring? Is knowing the statutory definition of gross income boring? Does it bore you to learn that there are employers out there that after having learned of their responsibilities as listed in the statutes and regulations have stopped withholding and reporting their employees income? Do you find it boring that people in this country are lawfully taking home 100% of the pay they earn?
If these things bore you then maybe your time would be better spent in front of the tube watching Oprah.
Nothing is going to change it. Not your vote, not mine.
Nothing is going to change what? Please elaborate. Do you have any comments on the article I posted? Did you even read the article? Do you have an opposing viewpoint? Or are you just running your mouth?
You are full of it. When the govt finds out these quacks "take home 100% of their own pay", they will and have been audited and get thrown in the slam or end up with a 100K tax bill.
Sure,thats why so people are taking home 100% of "their pay" legally with no problems.
the IRS can be stopped ADMINISTRATIVELY because they don't follow their own rules.
Sounds alot like what S.A.P. is doing, you are a member are you not?:
We already have a court decision and yes,we sued the IRS and got paid.
A few of SAP's so-called victories in the Court:
- "Save-a-Patriot" (John B. Kotmair) In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94);
- ("we have come to understand that ‘patriot’ may be a buzz-word for ‘tax protester’.")Kotmair v. CIR (6/19/86) 86 TC 1253;
- (awareness by perp that founder Kotmair had been convicted of tax evasion serves to negate good faith defense) US v. Crosson (ED Penn unpub 12/20/95);
- ("Save-a-Patriot" organization cited for contempt of court for its interference with a bankruptcy court proceeding) In re Weatherley (ED Penn unpub 7/15/93);
- (organization forbidden to accept money for its amateur advice to a litigant in bankruptcy court) In re Weatherley (Bankr. ED Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427;
- (in perhaps its only court victory, the organization described itself as a church, and claimed to possess a vial of holy oil from the Temple in Jerusalem, to perform weddings, (allegedly) subsidize incarcerated members who have "resisted and delayed the tyrants at every step through the criminal investigation and all other agency and court proceedings", sell tax-dodge publications as holy scriptures, and (generously) support Kotmair as their cleric, etc. Save-a-Patriot Fellowship v. US (D Md 1996) 962 F.Supp 695;
- Kotmair refused give testimony voluntarily for one of his followers who was prosecuted for multiple tax evasion. US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99);
Yep, "SAP" is certainly an excellent acronym for anyone associated with Mr. Kotmair and his organization. Note the court decision Mr. Kotmair got paid on(Managed to call themselves a tax exempt "church", or was it by chance an unrelated factor of IRS misbehaviour?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??
CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
That vaccuous argument didn't seem to help John Kotmair's son so very much now did it.
I know, he jess didn't follow your precise instructions!!
Thats why members are getting 100% refunds from the IRS!Are you getting those refunds"?"I don't think so bacause you have no idea how to!
Hehe, I don't get refunds because I don't pay excess taxes and course I don't get hit with a 10% fine for underpayment of estimated taxes or witholding either.
Tends to happen to those who don't pay via witholding yah know. Taxes still manage to come due in April now don't they.
But then you could always try the same route as Kotmair's son and not have to worry about filings in April for a few years just like him. Though I suppose he's not getting much in the way of refunds either.
P.S.
Why be a SAP and hand Hundreds of dollars over to a proven con artist Guru?
75% of the population doesn't pay substantial Individual Income Taxes in anycase. No refunds to get unless you are paying the IRS too much in the first place fool.
| Table
1. Preliminary Estimates of Effective Tax Rates by Income Category, 1977-1995 and Projected for 1999 |
|||||||||||
| Income Category | 1977 | 1979 | 1981 | 1983 | 1985 | 1987 | 1989 | 1991 | 1993 | 1995 | Projected 1999 |
| Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rate (In percent of gross income) | |||||||||||
| Lowest Quintile | -0.6 | -0.8 | -0.2 | -0.5 | -0.2 | -1.3 | -1.9 | -2.9 | -3.4 | -5.6 | -6.8 |
| Second Quintile | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4.6 | 3.5 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.9 |
| Middle Quintile | 7.1 | 7.5 | 8.3 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.3 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 5.4 |
| Fourth Quintile | 9.7 | 10.4 | 11.3 | 9.5 | 9.3 | 8.7 | 8.9 | 8.7 | 8.5 | 8.7 | 8.4 |
| Highest Quintile | 15.8 | 16.3 | 17.1 | 14.5 | 14.3 | 15.1 | 15.1 | 14.8 | 15.5 | 16.2 | 16.1 |
| All Families | 11.1 | 11.6 | 12.6 | 10.7 | 10.7 | 10.8 | 10.9 | 10.5 | 10.9 | 11.3 | 11.1 |
| Top 10 Percent | 17.6 | 18.0 | 18.7 | 15.9 | 15.6 | 16.9 | 16.6 | 16.3 | 17.4 | 18.2 | 18.0 |
| Top 5 Percent | 19.3 | 19.7 | 20.0 | 17.1 | 16.8 | 18.5 | 18.0 | 17.6 | 19.3 | 20.0 | 19.6 |
| Top 1 Percent | 23.1 | 22.6 | 22.0 | 19.3 | 18.7 | 20.9 | 19.7 | 19.9 | 22.8 | 23.4 | 22.2 |
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 90 | Top | Last ]
All witholdings are being returned from the IRS,How could that be?Could the American citizen truly not be liable.Get with the program!Your court cases don't seem to be holding up lately.Is the IRS refunding all witholdings to our members because they love us or because the chess match is over!CHECKMATE.
Sure enough TT:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
Talk to me about it after the 7year statute of limitations runs out on FAILURE TO FILE.
All witholdings are being returned from the IRS,How could that be?
Members have elected to not pay witholding. Simple for anyone to do as long as they are willing to pay the 10% underpayment fine in April when they file normally.
Course should those members not file, having income in excess of the exemptions on which tax is due, well then the 7 year clock starts ticking my friend. Good luck, it usually take the IRS a few years to get around to yah, jess to make sure it is Willful Failure to File. Ought to be interesting seeing as the IRS knows just who and how much is involved in each individual's case.
SORRY! NO CHECKMATE, pawn takes opponent's uncovered KING.
LOL!Good luck with your NRST agenda.It will be dead after the Brown case hits the supreme court.
Sure enough, no Brown case has been granted Certiori, nor has there been a Brown appeals case before the Circuit Courts, Perhaps you will deign to provide a cite and documentation to your oh so significant "BROWN" case.
Oh by the way did I mention that of necessity the BROWN case has already been shot down at least once, if appeal is being applied for!
ROTFLMAO!!!
Good luck with your NRST agenda.It will be dead
Oh!! I wasn't aware that the National Retail Sales Tax was in anyway dependant upon an Income Tax. LOL
Does that mean that Congress is going to be acting on the NRST soon?
Thats great, bye bye Income Tax!! We won't even have to bother to repeal it, that much less resistance from Congress. Wonderful!!!!
Constitution for the United States of America:
A LAW DICTIONARY
John Bouvier; Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
You have the wrong Brown case.
I Don't have any Brown case, and from the looks of it neither do you.
No cite, no documents, no Case!
Just like the rest of Kotmair's super wins:
A few of SAP's so-called victories in the Court:
Or maybe it like those Conklin wins:
http://www.netaxs.com/people/evansdb/tpfaq.html#proponents
http://ottoskinner.com/a-banister.html
"William T. Conklin claims to be successful in fighting the IRS, and has described himself as a "known tax protester like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington." Conklin v. United States, KTC 1994-259, Case No. 89-N-1514 (D. Col. 1994). Unfortunately, his claims of success are contradicted by the public record, because he has lost every case on record. See, e.g., Conklin v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 41 (1988); Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1992-318; Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-87.
Cases claimed as wins by William T. Conklin:
Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492
United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265
Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318
Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d 1032
Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027
Tavery v. United States, Civ. No. 87-Z-180, USDC Colorado "
Or the Great Beresford Case gone done the tubes with the rest of em:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF OREGON
CASE NO: CV 00-293-KI
Which of Course for which appeal has been filed and sofar gone no where, gonna sink the whole tax scheme Again!!!
Event #21: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF APPEAL OF JUDGMENT
You know, the usual old stuff for which T.P.r's never show actual documentation, but just claim wins, or Just wait till we appeal it! Or the whole government's gonna fold when this one gets to the Supreme Court.
Yep sure enough, when pigs fly, TT.
Brown vs US docket # 99-2066.
Which Court Silly:
Only Federal Appellate Case Docket No. 99-2066.
Try again, this time provide a link to some actual Court Documentation: identifying the Court and details of the actual case, IF ANY.
For all I know or anyone else knows you are citing a non existant case, or a State tax case, or any number of subterfuges that have been used by T.P.r's to scam marks.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 1999
(Argued: October 27, 1999Decided: March 23, 2000 )
Docket No. 99-2066
JOHN A. CUOCO,
Petitioner-Appellant ,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee .
B e f o r e: CARDAMONE and POOLER, Circuit Judges , and MORDUE, District Judge . *
Appeal from a order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Goettel, J .) denying petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.
Affirmed.
SOLOMON ROSENGARTEN, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant .
STEPHANOS BIBAS, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY (Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Christine H. Chung, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief) for Respondent-Appellee .
POOLER, Circuit Judge :
Petitioner John A. Cuoco appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Gerard L. Goettel, Judge ) denying the motion he made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for an order vacating his conviction on two counts each of robbery and robbery with a dangerous weapon. The district court rejected all of Cuoco's arguments, which included claims that the trial court violated both the United States Constitution and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 by allowing Cuoco to absent himself from his criminal trial and that Cuoco's appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to raise Cuoco's absence as a ground for reversal. We affirm. By refusing to remain in court when his criminal trial was about to begin, Cuoco waived his constitutional right to be present, and his appellate counsel's failure to seek reversal based on a violation of Rule 43 did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.
I'm here, but haven't gotten up to speed on the thread yet.
You can see the info on the Brown case on Irwins site.The supreme court has been bombarded with letters to take this case.
The only thing I know is that (in the military) my income is pretty gross.
ALL "TAX PROTESTER" ARGUMENTS TOTALLY DEBUNKED HERE:
Here's more material. This is what the tax protestors need to focus on:
DEP'T OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL TAX MANUAL,
TAX PROTESTERS.
It's all there. All the schemes, all the cases. All of it. Everything!
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 106 | Top | Last ]
You can see the info on the Brown case on Irwins site. The supreme court has been bombarded with letters to take this case.
Wow, I'm sure those letters will shake them up. The names and addresses of the senders will be logged and sent to the IRS, probably.
You can see the info on the Brown case on Irwins site.
You mean this IRWIN SCHIFF's veryown page on his Branny New Web site? [ BROWN FOR PREZ ]
And this [ IRWIN SCHIFF ];
And this Irwin Schiff;
Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.
And one of IRWIN SCHIFF's super amazing "FREE" OFFERs on his Branny New Very Own Site:
("Free electricty for life")
"If you decide to keep the kit we thank you by registering you to receive all of your electricity for free forever at such time as we can accomplish this and deliver our machine to your home."
Signature: "
The one who's very own Branny New Website has no longer has a Brown Case or any mention thereof on it ROTFLM(_|_)O!!!
The IRWIN SCIFF who used this Brown Case until it went totally belly up and defunct on him, because it no longer provided him with support for his GET A REFUND SCAM!!
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT A. BROWN; ELENA H. BROWN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket: 99-15308 Filed October 26, 1999
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Docket: CV-98-00825-PMP
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
MEMORANDUM <<1>>
Before: BROWNING, WALLACE and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Robert and Elena Brown appeal pro se the district court's summary judgment for the United States in the Browns' action seeking a refund of taxes paid for tax year 1996 on the ground the IRS had failed to make any assessment against them and they had no tax liability. These arguments are
frivolous. First, the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1988). Second, compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, is income subject to taxation. See United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981). The Browns are taxpayers within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code and are subject to federal tax laws and income tax. See id.
Third, there is no requirement that the IRS make a formal assessment of tax liability before payment is necessary. An assessment is merely a bookkeeping procedure that permits the government to bring its administrative apparatus to bear in collecting a tax. See Zeier v. United States, 80 F.3d 1360, 1354 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting similar argument in
estate tax context). Most taxes are collected voluntarily, without an assessment; an assessment serves as the basis on which the IRS takes action against those who do not voluntarily pay their taxes on time. See id.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
GET a good LAWYER TT,
you are going to need one, with the direction you are headed;
Very Soon I would guess.
ROTFLM(_|_)O!!!!!
Schiff:
"The case now pending before the Supreme Court, Brown v. The United States, Docket No. 99-2066, if heard , will end the income tax. The case focuses on a tax that few Americans know exists: the Federal "wage tax." Since 1943, this tax has been collected (and disguised) by the Government as the withholding of income taxes "at the source." However, the taxes that get "withheld" from a worker's pay each week are not income taxes. They have nothing to do with income taxes or the 16th Amendment. They represent a "wage tax" imposed in Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code. Income taxes are imposed in Section 1. "
Refer: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2066.htm
Note: Schiff has left the poor guy hanging out in the breeze all on his own, representing his own case, set up for a Cert. Denied, just like the Beresford case is heading for, once it gets shot down in the appellate level.
You are very far off base over this.People have been getting full refunds from the IRS and employers have started not to withold from their employees.The Brown case will go to the supreme court and their is no way that the SC can rule against them unless our court system is totally a joke.If the court takes this case,it's over.
You are very far off base over this.People have been getting full refunds from the IRS and employers have started not to withold from their employees.The Brown case will go to the supreme court and their is no way that the SC can rule against them unless our court system is totally a joke.If the court takes this case,it's over.
I know someone who used "no withholding" stuff you peddle.
He is now in receipt of a $450,000 bill, payable RIGHT NOW, from the IRS. His wife, who warned him about such terminal goofiness, is leaving him. Basically, he is looking at willful failure to file, willful failure to pay, AND his defense is...the Cheek defense.
Somehow, the "I am too stupid to know what I am doing" defense is not one that is a worthy and noble one. Well, if it keeps him out of jail, it's good enough...but it's awfully silly.
.The Brown case will go to the supreme court and their is no way that the SC can rule against them unless our court system is totally a joke.If the court takes this case, it's over.
I've read the Brown case. It's a simple, and very routine affirmance of a trial court summary judgment, regarding some old and dreary tax protester issues. The Supreme Court will not take the case, as it presents no significant issues. The law is well-settled in this area. Nothing new here, folks. Move along now.
Hey wait a minute! I thought there was no Brown case. Now there is? I've been reading this whole thread. Now I'm supposed to move along? And why did my employer stop withholding federal taxes last year?
Will see.
And if there is a BROWN case, how could Ancient Geezer NOT have known about it? I was following AC's line of thought up to this point. Now I'm a bit confused.
Not to mention TruthTaxes claim that lot's of people are taking home 100% of their pay. How does that work? No SS withholdings? No State withholdings? No Medicare or Medicade withholdings? Are they just working off the books?
Hey wait a minute! I thought there was no Brown case. Now there is?
I only recently joined this thread. When I saw that comething called "the Brown case" was an issue, and then someone gave it a docket number (containing the year 1999) I dug it up and was amazed at how ordinary it is. It's not well-known because it's basically nothing. Perfectly routine. A nowhere case decided last year (or any year, there are many just like it where the taxpayer loses, even as Brown lost) is hardly going to be on everyone's mind. Why should anyone know about it, except the unfortunate folks who are involved? And, of course, the scam artists who are selling "do-it-yourself" tax avoidance suicide kits.
Wrong again.Give me a break, you guys know the IRS is a scam.Yes,it is true people are getting all of their witholdings back at the end of the year from the IRS because they know what is taxable income and the IRS has no claim to it.Did anyone here even read the article written by Larken?The IRS has no rebut to this.Check out www.taxableincome.net.
Reply to post # 6.You have already misread section 861.Taxable income is under part 1(b)not(a).
Give me a break, you guys know the IRS is a scam.
No logic, no mercy. You've got it entirely backwards. The IRS is a tyranny, but it's "legal" in the sense that it's got the full backing of the Congress and the courts. This must change, but until then, it's the law. The only scam in this thread is the tax protester racket, which feeds off the ignorance, and the well-intentioned patriotism, of its victims.
Keep right on dreaming TT. You are batting 0.
It's your liberty and property at stake, not mine. So go down in flames in style guy. You are welcome to your opinions no matter how misguided they are. They just won't do squat for you when it your turn in the docket.
Hey wait a minute! I thought there was no Brown case.
Nope theres a Brown Case alright, but TT there was playing cagey with it and not providing any details. Once he let out he was looking at an Irwin Schiff site, that nailed the case he was talking about by visiting all of the sites that Schiff maintai